It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cop Caught With Hard Drives Full of Child Porn, Won’t Be Charged Because of a Typo

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: douglas5
The State treats everyone like a terrorist frisking them at airports spying on internet and phone calls etc because of a few folk years ago .

Well treat them the same see how they like it they ALL seem to be guilty

It's because everyone is guilty.




posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: jude11

Jude, you are just being ridiculous. When a cop does it it's not illegal. Haven't you learned that yet?


Yeah- I'd like to see statistics on how many ATS members would get away with huge child porn collections based on a typo.

Pretty sure it doesn't matter how they find out you're breaking the law- if you're not on their team, you're going to get it.

This is one of the few instances in which I fully support the law- Shame it doesn't apply to the police.


Here's what would end up happening, it doesn't really matter if he's a cop. If he's convicted he will win on appeal because the evidence was obtained illegally. Now that he has won, even if further evidence is legally obtained, he can't be tried again on the same material due to the double jeopardy laws. The only way to catch him in the future is to allow him to be free in the present.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: jude11

Jude, you are just being ridiculous. When a cop does it it's not illegal. Haven't you learned that yet?


Yeah- I'd like to see statistics on how many ATS members would get away with huge child porn collections based on a typo.

Pretty sure it doesn't matter how they find out you're breaking the law- if you're not on their team, you're going to get it.

This is one of the few instances in which I fully support the law- Shame it doesn't apply to the police.


Here's what would end up happening, it doesn't really matter if he's a cop. If he's convicted he will win on appeal because the evidence was obtained illegally. Now that he has won, even if further evidence is legally obtained, he can't be tried again on the same material due to the double jeopardy laws. The only way to catch him in the future is to allow him to be free in the present.


And that, my friends, is insanity at its finest.

This system is *broken*



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: lordcomac

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: jude11

Jude, you are just being ridiculous. When a cop does it it's not illegal. Haven't you learned that yet?


Yeah- I'd like to see statistics on how many ATS members would get away with huge child porn collections based on a typo.

Pretty sure it doesn't matter how they find out you're breaking the law- if you're not on their team, you're going to get it.

This is one of the few instances in which I fully support the law- Shame it doesn't apply to the police.


Here's what would end up happening, it doesn't really matter if he's a cop. If he's convicted he will win on appeal because the evidence was obtained illegally. Now that he has won, even if further evidence is legally obtained, he can't be tried again on the same material due to the double jeopardy laws. The only way to catch him in the future is to allow him to be free in the present.


And that, my friends, is insanity at its finest.

This system is *broken*


To any sane person, yes the system is broken.

But for people that consider themselves above the law, it works perfectly.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Some misinformation going around here. Even from the articles in the op. If you follow the link in the article back to the source in the Washington State Journal the information gets a little better.

- The guy was not a police officer. He was a correctional officer in a prison.
- He was being investigated for having a relationship with a female prisoner. Nothing to do with child porno.
- The warrant was supposed to be for evidence of the relationship with the prisoner.
- The cops writing the warrant were using an older one from a different case as a template, and forgot to change the old warrant to the evidence they were supposed to be looking for.
- They ironically did find CP on the guy's computer, but no evidence of what they were originally supposed to be looking for.

Since they never had reason to suspect him of having CP, they were not supposed to be looking for any CP. If their original warrant had not been screwed up, they probably could have gotten a second warrant to cover the CP once they realized it was there. However, since the original warrant was bogus, everything they found has to be thrown out. If it was not thrown out it would be a huge violation of the 4th amendment.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dave0davidson
Some misinformation going around here. Even from the articles in the op. If you follow the link in the article back to the source in the Washington State Journal the information gets a little better.

- The guy was not a police officer. He was a correctional officer in a prison.
- He was being investigated for having a relationship with a female prisoner. Nothing to do with child porno.
- The warrant was supposed to be for evidence of the relationship with the prisoner.
- The cops writing the warrant were using an older one from a different case as a template, and forgot to change the old warrant to the evidence they were supposed to be looking for.
- They ironically did find CP on the guy's computer, but no evidence of what they were originally supposed to be looking for.

Since they never had reason to suspect him of having CP, they were not supposed to be looking for any CP. If their original warrant had not been screwed up, they probably could have gotten a second warrant to cover the CP once they realized it was there. However, since the original warrant was bogus, everything they found has to be thrown out. If it was not thrown out it would be a huge violation of the 4th amendment.


Oh so possessing child porn is fine then?

Doesnt this bring into question the whole practice of roadside stop and search then?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Don't be ridiculous. Possesing child porn is obviously totally wrong and unforgivable. That does not mean we should give the cops the right to search our homes without any suspicion or warrant. Do you want to live in a police state?

As far as roadside stops and searches, that is a totally different thing. The person being searched is out in public, the cops are not searching the person's home. Most of the time the cops are able to convince the person to consent to a search, that eliminates the need for a warrant right away. Also if the person is under arrest, the cops have a right to search "their person" which can include the inside of a car where they would be able to reach. As far as I know searching through the trunk, or searching for hidden compartments or something requires a warrant or consent.

You don't really think it's a good idea to just let the cops search anyone or their home whenever they want, just because they might be able to find a few people with CP do you?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dave0davidson
a reply to: OneManArmy

Don't be ridiculous. Possesing child porn is obviously totally wrong and unforgivable. That does not mean we should give the cops the right to search our homes without any suspicion or warrant. Do you want to live in a police state?

As far as roadside stops and searches, that is a totally different thing. The person being searched is out in public, the cops are not searching the person's home. Most of the time the cops are able to convince the person to consent to a search, that eliminates the need for a warrant right away. Also if the person is under arrest, the cops have a right to search "their person" which can include the inside of a car where they would be able to reach. As far as I know searching through the trunk, or searching for hidden compartments or something requires a warrant or consent.

You don't really think it's a good idea to just let the cops search anyone or their home whenever they want, just because they might be able to find a few people with CP do you?



Of course not, Im not calling for illegal searches and seizures, which should apply in public. Or inside your private car.

Regardless, they DID search his property and found child porn. And simply because of a small technicality not only does he get off, but the evidence obtained can never be used against him?
Did this guy even get put on some sort of sex register?
Or is this a manufactured story being used to whip up emotion to justify changing laws?
It got me if it is.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Wow, just WOW.

The world we live in is just vile!



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11

It's our own fault. Judges are elected. If the judge thought this would cost him his job he wouldn't have done it. He knows people don't give a poo when it comes to anything for more then 5 minutes.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dave0davidson
a reply to: OneManArmy

Don't be ridiculous. Possesing child porn is obviously totally wrong and unforgivable. That does not mean we should give the cops the right to search our homes without any suspicion or warrant. Do you want to live in a police state?


He was suspected of one crime and got caught out for another - That's fair game and tough luck for him.

If your house gets an arrest warrant because they think you've done some sort of theft and they then discover you actually have a meth lab in your basement you couldnt expect the cops to be like "Well, we weren't looking for that so were not gonna prosecute you for it"

Dont be daft!



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dave0davidson
Some misinformation going around here. Even from the articles in the op. If you follow the link in the article back to the source in the Washington State Journal the information gets a little better.

- The guy was not a police officer. He was a correctional officer in a prison.
- He was being investigated for having a relationship with a female prisoner. Nothing to do with child porno.
- The warrant was supposed to be for evidence of the relationship with the prisoner.
- The cops writing the warrant were using an older one from a different case as a template, and forgot to change the old warrant to the evidence they were supposed to be looking for.
- They ironically did find CP on the guy's computer, but no evidence of what they were originally supposed to be looking for.

Since they never had reason to suspect him of having CP, they were not supposed to be looking for any CP. If their original warrant had not been screwed up, they probably could have gotten a second warrant to cover the CP once they realized it was there. However, since the original warrant was bogus, everything they found has to be thrown out. If it was not thrown out it would be a huge violation of the 4th amendment.
OUch your right, but ouch.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

Give Cops a little credit.


no

second line



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I see. The trouble is it was not a small tecnicality. Apparently it is just a wild coincience that the guy had child porn. They were not investigating him for child porn, and they had no reason to think that he had any. To get a valid warrant the cops must have reason to believe they will find what they are looking for. The original warrant was never valid because it said they were looking for things that they had no reason to look for. If the evidence they found because of that search was allowed in court, it would effectively allow the police to obtain a search warrant for anyone they want with zero evidence. Which would completely undermine the reason for requiring a search warrant in the first place.

It really sucks that this guy won't get busted for having child porn, but the alternative is basically not requiring the police to have evidence before they can get a search warrant.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: dave0davidson
a reply to: OneManArmy

I see. The trouble is it was not a small tecnicality. Apparently it is just a wild coincience that the guy had child porn. They were not investigating him for child porn, and they had no reason to think that he had any. To get a valid warrant the cops must have reason to believe they will find what they are looking for. The original warrant was never valid because it said they were looking for things that they had no reason to look for. If the evidence they found because of that search was allowed in court, it would effectively allow the police to obtain a search warrant for anyone they want with zero evidence. Which would completely undermine the reason for requiring a search warrant in the first place.

It really sucks that this guy won't get busted for having child porn, but the alternative is basically not requiring the police to have evidence before they can get a search warrant.


so lets say this same scenario resulted in a sex slave, found in the cellar all chained and gagged?
Or they found da da DAAAAA "A BOMB" and loads of jihadist material on his computer?
Would your same loophole still stand?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

edit on 19-1-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Plaster his face all over the world. Let justice prevail. More than one way to skin a cat.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
No Cop will work with perv boy.

Give Cops a little credit.


Your naive! Child porn is on the rise! Porn is everywhere. For a lot of men who's desires and lust are but quenched by regular sexual attraction or acts it's the last resort of a twisted sick person. Look at all the disgusting, degrading, evil that is represented by regular pornography. And women are to blame as well. Allowing it and often times encouraging it as part of their "healthy" sex life. I feel sorry for young people nowadays and what they are exposed to on the Internet and have to deal with emotionally. Human beings really are a cancER on this earth.
edit on 19-1-2015 by MiddleClassWhiteBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleClassWhiteBoy
Human beings really are a cancER on this earth.


No, some human beings are a cancer on this earth.
The rest of us just try and scrape by.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

It's not a loophole, it's the whole purpose of obtaining a search warrant before they can search your property. They must have a reason to believe they will find what they are looking for, they can't just go on fishing expeditions. The 4th amendment is not "a loophole"

Anyway, I'll hypothesize about those scenarios. The police have enough evidence suspect some guy of "crime a" but they write their warrant incorrectly, and obtain a warrant for "crime b" the warrant is not valid because they have no reason to suspect the guy has committed "crime b"

Scenario 1- They find a sex slave in the basement. The police can not testify that they found the sex slave in the basement because anything they found with the bogus warrant is inadmissable. However, they saved the sex slave from the basement. The sex slave will be able to testify in court as to the crimes the guy committed. This guy will go to jail.

Scenario 2- They find terrorist paraphernalia and a bomb. I really don't know with this one. According to the original 4th amendment the guy would probably skate because the warrant was bogus. However, from what I've heard of the USAPATRIOT Act, they can probably ignore the guy's 4th amentment rights if they just declare him a terrorist. So he's probably screwed too.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join