Any DU lawyers?

[serryjw]

If you can find this story, please post. I heard it on TV this morning. Have a legal question. My facts may not totally correct
Kids break into home, steal a bunch of stuff including videos. On the videos is evidence that home owner is a pedophile! Can this evidence be used for a conviction of the pedophile?

[Catherine Vincent]

1. I should hope so.

Where's old lefty lawyer?

[SteppingRazor]

2. I'm not a lawyer, but...

I'm a lot more up on the law than the typical layman. I would say with 90 percent certainty that, yes, it can be used against the pedophile. Had the police busted in and taken it, it could not be.

[Lex]

3. Yes it can be used as evidence in a trial because

it wasn't the cops/government who broke in or searched without a warrant, etc. The 4th Amendment applies to excluding evidence found during unlawful searches and seizures by the government (i.e. cops, etc.).

[spindrifter]

21. Agreed--what's more

the videos' can be used to get a search warrant, for example, to check the person's hard drive.

[Synnical]

4. Here's the story . . .

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/03/police_to_review_tapes_of_alleged_pedophile/


Lawrence police plan to view 21 DVDs and hours of videotapes for more victims of an alleged pedophile who, they say, filmed himself sexually molesting two children -- and may have made home movies of his personal assaults on other kids.
Article Tools

Lawrence Police Chief John J. Romero identified the suspect yesterday as James Raboin, 42, of East Haverhill Street in Lawrence. Romero said Raboin's home had been burglarized on April 24 and thieves took cameras, a laptop, and a locked strong box containing the DVDs and videotapes.

Raboin told police investigating the burglary that the strong box held videos, but he did not describe their contents, the chief said.

Romero said someone, whom he would not identify, realized what was on the stolen tapes and gave them to police last Friday. (He said the burglary is being investigated as a separate crime.)

[serryjw]

16. Thanks, I had no luck in finding it

n/t

[unblock]

17. this is a bit complicated

basically, the police can use any evidence unless they acquired that evidence by way of an unreasonable search.
"unreasonable" meaning the police have to behave by the book.

the police were completely reasonable in acquiring the videotapes, as it's completely normal and reasonable for them to seize them as evidence of a burglary. assuming of course that the police didn't TELL the burglar to steal the videotapes!

however, it's probably NOT reasonable for them to VIEW the videotapes. if they were labeled "kiddie porn", then sure, but assuming they were unlabeled or had something innocuous on the label, then it's probably not reasonable for them to have viewed them.

[mrcheerful]

5. Yes its legal. The tapes were turned into the police, as long as police

weren't the ones who broke in and stole them then no law of illegal search applies.

Edited to rewrite my ramblings.

[Master Mahon]

6. Since the tapes

would have been found in the possession of those who broke into the house,
it would be their word against the householder as to who they in fact belonged to.
There is no verifiable link between the tapes and the householder, but more verifiable is their link to the kids who had them in their possession.
(Unless of course the homeowner is ON the tapes)
This is looking at it from a defense point of view based on the infomation provided. :+

[Lex]

9. I thought the guy himself was seen on the tapes.

Perhaps a good defense attorney can help him out with that? ;)

[Master Mahon]

10. Maybe OJ's attorneys? n/t

[radwriter0555]

15. Simpson's attorney is dead. However maybe marcia "oj is innocent" clark

is available.

[npincus]

19. Marcia Clark was the prosecutor, not the Defense Lawyer

????

[radwriter0555]

22. You're right! And she's the reason simpson is walking free today. In her

opening statement the moron APOLOGIZED to the jury for persecuting their HERO.

When the prosecution calls the murdering, wife-beating defendant a hero, it's a sure-fire guarantee that she's gonna lose the case.

Hence my premise.

Aren't ya glad you were paying attention?

:D

[Inland]

12. That's the right answer.

The tapes have to be authenticated. I guess the felon robbers have to testify where they got them and that they didn't change them.....thereby winning themselves a walk. Who knows if a jury would believe it.

[treestar]

18. A thought

The exclusionary rule is meant to deter unlawful police conduct, but here you can trespassing/burglary, is there any argument that they should be inadmissible on a similar ground?

Would it be likely that say a bunch of fundamentalists would break into peoples' houses in the hopes of finding things like this? Or that of politicians they wanted to discredit? If they were willing to take that rap, they might, and how many crazies are out there that would?

IOW, there could be a public policy for not allowing this.

[Inland]

20. Yeah, maybe.

But it's also true that the pre-exclusionary rule was, the evidence is admissble and the defendant can sue for damages for the violation of his rights. Exclusion came about because we realized there simply wasn't any real remedy, or deterrence, by telling a guy in jail that he could sue the state. It's not so clear for a non-governmental actor. I guess we would have to wait until some nutbags start breaking into homes for evidence and try it out, but here, I'm sure they would say that the robbers weren't breaking in to get evidence, they just did get it.

[Ian David]

13. In this case, the guy is ON the tapes.

"Hey, look at me! I'm breaking the law... and catching it all on tape!"

Brilliant.

[rzemanfl]

7. I was going to ask whether he was in the videos, but then saw the

article posted. I think the answer is yes if the items came into the hands of the police without their searching the house.

[acmejack]

11. There was no article when I formulated my response!

Ruh roh...

[acmejack]

8. eliminated upon enlightenment

[CPMaz]

14. Hope so, since

the article says that he even appears in the tapes. So long as the police weren't the ones who broke in, the tapes should be usable.

Note: I'm a little biased here. I used to live in MA (AZ now) and still have family there, including a 9 year old nephew. I REALLY hope the tapes are admissable against the pedophile.