In this Ornicus piece about a new book coming out. Not sure there’s anything new, but just in case you haven’t seen it - http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/sec…

CwALS, an ad hoc, pro bono group to be sure.

On the legal side of this thing, it has been widely reported that the trigger for the raid was one or possibly more phone calls from someone claiming to be a 16 year-old girl named “Sarah” to a crisis center hotline in Texas, claiming she’d been forced into a “marriage” with a much older FLDS man and had been raped.

Texas authorities obtained a search warrant based on those reports without ever identifying or talking to “Sarah”, fair enough if she was being held in the El Dorado compound. Once they entered church property they couldn’t locate “Sarah”, who has yet to be found, but did discover evidence that suggests other statutory rapes including information from a locked safe; that new information led to issuance of a second warrant, allowing the seizure of the minor children and additional evidence.

It now appears that “Sarah” may actually be a 33 year-old woman from Colorado Springs, CO, with no FLDS relationship at all, who is in jail in The Springs charged with making unrelated false police reports. If it turns out that “Sarah” does not exist, what does that mean regarding the basis for and legitimacy of the initial warrant? And if the first warrant is invalidated, couldn’t the second warrant also be voided and all evidence collected under both of them be suppressed, as fruit of a poisoned tree?

Just because the probable cause turned out not to be true wouldn’t automatically void the warrent. Probable cause is just that - probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime would be found somewhere. The key fact is going to be whether the affiant on the warrant knew some of the information was false. So it’s not a matter of Sarah being a 33-year-old woman from Colorado, it’s whether the law enforcement officer swearing to the facts establishing probable cause knew that. The accused can test the warrant through something called a Franks hearing where they can try to show that the affiant on the warrant included information he knew was false. If so, then what happens is the court strikes the information that the affiant knew was false and then looks to see if the affidavit without that information would still meet the probable cause standard. I doubt the call was the sole evidence cited in the warrant. Usually anonymous sources need to be bolstered in the affidavit with some corroborating evidence to show they are reliable. They probably corroborated what they could with other information they had about the sect. But, of course, I would need to see the warrant affidavit to be sure.

So long as the cops are legally there - e.g. the warrant was lawfully obtained and gave them the right to enter - then any evidence in plain site of those executing the warrant would have probable cause to believe is evidence of a crime could be seized whether the evidence was relevant to the original crime or not.

And, even if the warrant is bad, given the allegations being made to the police about essentially rape and being held against her wishes, there may be an argument - so long as the police had reason to believe the allegations were true - that they didn’t need a warrant at all because of exigent circumstances.

I’m not a Texas lawyer so their may be special rules that apply in Texas and this is a very general overview.

But basically, so long as the officers applying for the warrant believed what they were telling the court and what they told the court met probable cause standards, then it should hold up. Indeed, given what they found when they got there, I suspect any judge is going to be loath to throw the warrant out.

in the past I’ve known “exigent circumstances” — i.e. a call to the cops re: a domestic disturbance — to bolster charges for a related offense (parole violation for possession of a handgun, in the case I know best), but there wasn’t a warrant involved: there was a response to the call (this was before 9-1-1 became the statewide standard of LE response in practice, so related dispatch/warrant issues may apply now that didn’t then). Don’t know how much has changed since that 1983 incident.

Waco made it bloodily obvious, though, that we couldn’t wait for the Feds or give them the lead in cases like this. The FLDS has been Eldorado about three years now, as a functional entity. There’s a damned good little weekly paper down there with a raft of information on — albeit not from nearly as friendly a view as the Salt Lake and Deseret papers — the FLDS.

My thinking is if the call went to a family violence/domestic abuse hotline, and the person who received that call in turn reported same in good faith, the warrant *ought* to stand up in court, and anything discovered in the course of responding to that call ought to be admissible. But like I said, I’m not a lawyer.

Let me add one thing here, though: “Spiritual Marriage,” which is what the sect calls its rite creating polygamous relationships, has no legal standing in Texas. So the laws concerning statutory rape would apply.

Unless the activity crossed state lines between Utah and Texas. The warrant for Koresh was for weapons violations, not child endangerment or rape.

Exigent circumstances is a way to get around the need for a warrant to enter a home or other private property, but it’s a fairly high standard. I brought it up here only because if the warrant is somehow defective - which I don’t think will be the case - the DA could still seek to use the evidence on the grounds that the police were there lawfully due to exigent circumstances.

Arizona, Utah, and even Canada, according to reports in The Vancouver Sun, the Salt Lake Tribune, and The Deseret News. To my mind that’s a violation of the Mann Act, but what do I know?

from the story of this man, whose 14-year-old first cousin and “celestial bride” is the victim of one of the rapes Jeffs was convicted of conspiring in under Utah law.

to me, too, Sarah. Which potentially brings in RICO, money laundering statutes, and other federal laws. Of course, that doesn’t mean the Texas district attorney is going to want the Feds poaching his case or even that the Feds would necessarily have more stringent penalties.

These people aren’t brainwashed, they’re aculturated from birth. Someone who’s been brainwashed had a different past, one they can return to with time and treatment. These polygs don’t know any other life. For them, this perversion is normal, right, reasonable and their duty. Breaking away, reisting even, requires them to deny the validity of themselves, thier loved ones, everything they’ve ever known.

Even the “lost boys” who are literally driven out of the flock with just the clothes on their backs to fend for themselves will try to return, to come back to the only life that is real no matter how badly they’ve been treated. Horrible nightmare, for all of them.

Thanks for keeping an open mind. You’re a jewel.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Brilliant, witty, charming, devastatingly handsome?

All of the above?*

You are a tease; now please, tell all. The new job, the boss, every juicy detail.

[* Careful with your answer; your next raise may depend on it.]

and it has brought me back to the university from which, 20-plus years ago, I graduated with a degree in the field in which I’m now working.

But the best part is, my new boss is glad I’m there, and pleased with my work.

A completed circle. Or a convergent spiral. Or a karmic closure. Whatever, a good thing.

I’ll take your non-response to my query as (E) All of the above. Thank you, so kind.

I hadn’t even got to what’s good about the new job yet.

My old boss will probably be a saint someday — she’s exactly that kind of hands-on, sharp-tongued, hard-working real Catholic; and one of my co-workers used to tell me every day “don’t let her say things like that to you.”

I’m tougher than I look, I guess.

My new boss, on the other hand, is constantly available, always ready to answer a question, and encourages me even when I make a mistake.

The sheer unadulterated contrast — not to mention the better wages and the fact that this job comes with health insurance, paid sick leave, and state retirement — is almost breathtaking.

Health insurance? Retirement? Congratulations!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Wonderful, what a load off your mind. A definite tilt in the karmic axis towards rectitude.

Working for saints is never any fun. M. Teresa was apparently much-disliked by her acolytes, and Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by her own followers. One of my better life decisions was to opt out of the sainthood track early on.

Good for you.