ExpertLaw.com Forums

Something I Saw On Law And Order

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 04-15-2008, 07:19 PM
    blueeagle
    Something I Saw On Law And Order
    The other day I was watching an episode of Law and Order. Apparently a child molester was mailing video recording he mad e of the sex act to his victims. The judge refused to grant a warrant to search the victims home, so the detectives and conduct a clearly illegal search. The judge calls them down on it, but states the evidence was still admissible since the home did not belong to the defendant, and it wasn't his civil rights that they violated. This really got me thinking. Can evidence be used against a defendant if it's seized from a third party? Maybe Carl knows the answer...
  • 04-15-2008, 08:35 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Quote:

    Quoting blueeagle
    View Post
    The other day I was watching an episode of Law and Order. Apparently a child molester was mailing video recording he mad e of the sex act to his victims. The judge refused to grant a warrant to search the victims home, so the detectives and conduct a clearly illegal search. The judge calls them down on it, but states the evidence was still admissible since the home did not belong to the defendant, and it wasn't his civil rights that they violated. This really got me thinking. Can evidence be used against a defendant if it's seized from a third party? Maybe Carl knows the answer...

    First, never get your legal learnin' from TV ... or the internet. :)

    While it may depend on state law and federal circuit court case law, in general a defendant does not have grounds to object to the search of a third party's home. By mailing the video to the victim, he loses that expectation of privacy. The video may not be able to be used against the victim for whatever reason they might want to, but it may be permitted in to use against the suspect.

    Though I'm fuzzy as to why the victim would not have just consented to turn the video over ...

    But, that's why you can't base your legal education on television.

    - Carl
  • 04-15-2008, 08:51 PM
    blueeagle
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Ok, the victim was in the hospital because he tried to kill himself. His mother blamed the police for his attempted suicide, therefore, she refused to give consent to the search. So the detectives claim to have a search warrant.
  • 04-15-2008, 08:58 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Quote:

    Quoting blueeagle
    View Post
    Ok, the victim was in the hospital because he tried to kill himself. His mother blamed the police for his attempted suicide, therefore, she refused to give consent to the search. So the detectives claim to have a search warrant.

    The suspect would still not likely have standing to have it suppressed. But, it would be very fact and state specific.

    - Carl
  • 04-15-2008, 09:03 PM
    blueeagle
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Quote:

    Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    The suspect would still not likely have standing to have it suppressed. But, it would be very fact and state specific.

    - Carl

    Well the judge wasn't to happy about the violation of civil liberties. She had just dismissed the case based on lack of evidence, and the tip about the videos came from a sex offender serving 8 years in prison. This guy was also molested defendant when he was younger. The ADA offered to move him to a mental facility if he gave them any information linking the defendant to the crime. The judge suspected he was lying in order to obtain a lesser punishment.
  • 04-15-2008, 09:20 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    And seperate sanctions could be brought against the officers or the agency ... it's possible that the victim could sue the officers for violating their 4th Amendment rights ... but, as I said, this was TV.

    - Carl
  • 04-15-2008, 09:26 PM
    blueeagle
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    The officer got a one mnoth suspection. The victim declined to file a suit.

    Yes, this is TV so it really don't matter that much.
  • 04-15-2008, 09:47 PM
    jk
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    just in case you were wondering, Blue, the horse on Mr. Ed didn't really talk.

    they have to dramatize the stories they use (yes, although they say the story is ficticious, many of them are actually from real life although they alter them for dramatic purposes) so people will watch and the advertisers will buy commercial time.

    If they stuck with the old boring real facts, they would have.....well, they would have Court TV. Not a lot of big name advertisers on those shows.
  • 04-15-2008, 10:12 PM
    blueeagle
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    just in case you were wondering, Blue, the horse on Mr. Ed didn't really talk.

    Great... next thing your gonna tell me is the Easter bunny isn't real...
  • 04-16-2008, 04:08 AM
    BOR
    Re: Something I Saw On Law And Order
    Quote:

    Quoting blueeagle
    View Post
    Can evidence be used against a defendant if it's seized from a third party?


    One can not generally assert the constitutional rights of another, ergo, X can not rely on the fact evidence was illegally obtained from Y, at X's trial.


    Here is a recent exclusionary rule case from SCOTUS:


    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZO.html

    As we note, the MI supreme court declined review, so certiorari was to the MI court of appeals. Although most state cases arise from a state SC decision on appeal, such is not always the case.

    Since the evidence obtained satisfied the MI constitution, all that was left to decide was whether it was consistent with the 4th AM's provisions.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved