 |
A call from a 16-year old girl, claiming sexual abuse at the Texas Polygamist Compound may have been a prank call from a Colorado Springs woman. 33-year old Rozita Swinton was arrested Wednesday Night by Colorado Springs Police.
According to sources close to the investigation, the F.B.I. began tracing calls from a person named “Sarah” to a Teenage Rescue Mission for girls trying to escape the sect. “Sarah” is the same person who made the call which lead to the raid. Authorities now believe Swinton was behind those fake calls, where 416 children were removed from the compound…
“She does have some history with Colorado Springs Police of making prior false calls to police,” says Lt. Skip Arms. Court Affidavits have been sealed in her recent arrest, but NEWSCHANNEL 13 has learned that it relates to a false call back in February from a girl named “Jennifer” claiming she was being held hostage in a basement off Candon Drive. Colorado Springs Police spent most of the day searching more than a dozen homes for a person in distress.
Meanwhile, a scrum of lawyers is having melee practice in San Angelo, Texas…
Golly gee. There’s a chance the Texas coppers pulled off this whole invasion based upon phony information?
How could something like that happen in the United States?
No-tech Swatting?
Well, if a “false” police report was made, she should be prosecuted, the same as any other law breaker.
But, as with any other law breaker, the nature of the crime needs to be understood.
Shoot a bullet into a crowded room==if it hits anyone, you are guilty of murder. If you miss everyone, you are guilty of something less.
Same thing here.
#2 – uh, no. The whole execution of a search warrant was premised on what may be a hoax. Think any prosecutions stemming from that potential hoax will hold up on appeal?
The San Angelo coppers must have been trained by their former governor whatsisname.
I am not a big fan of these kooks in Texas, but when I heard about the raid, I thought “Another Ruby Ridge?”.
If the police can make such a massive raid on an unsubstantiated claim, then say goodbye to the Bill Of Rights. We do expect to have rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and we see that over time the standard for “unreasonable” has been diminished to the point of practically nonexistent.
So, now if your neighbor has a beef against your dog barking too late at night, he can call the cops on you claiming that you are a child molester, and when the police break down your door and find that ounce of pot, put you in jail for possession.
Closer and closer to fascism.
[Comment deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
Looks like you guys are having a hard time putting this together. Let me help.
If an official becomes suspicious of child abuse during the investigation of a crime, that suspicion… or evidence found relating to abuse… is not invalidated if the crime being initially investigated is proven to have been a false report.
Someone wanted this to happen, so they found a way to make it happen. Since what happened isn’t bad, unless you think pregnant 13 year old girls is a normal thing, no one will object.
An erosion of rights? Maybe. A threat to liberty? Only to child molesters.
And, if the call had been legit but the cops had not raided because one call was all they had to go on? How many arm chair generals would be criticizing the cops then?
How can people have such excellent hind sight with their heads up their asses?
The term of law is the Good faith exception
Two 1984 companion cases, United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 902) and Massachusetts v. Sheppard (468 U.S. 981). Leon and Sheppard established a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule no longer applies to situations where the police, acting in good faith, seize evidence in the context of reliance on a warrant which lacks probable cause.
#6, James, how can an erosion of rights not be a threat to liberty?
Let me put this together for you. In order to get a search warrant, there needs to be evidence that a crime has taken place or is in progress.
This establishes “reason”. If the police see a crime in progress and the criminal runs in your home, they can pursue because they have an eye witness.
If the police receive a phone call and go by your house and they do not have a search warrant they need to ask your permission to enter your premises. Otherwise they need to go to a judge and prove reason to enter your home. More than a phone call.
The guarantee against Unreasonable Search and Seizure is THE main feature of the Bill of Rights. To protect us from abuse of government power.
None of the above happened here. If this is allowed to go forward, then we are all in REAL trouble.
Our laws are based on precedent. This is the worst kind of precedent.
Where is the ACLU when we really need them?
#9–Ah Yea==you ask “James, how can an erosion of rights not be a threat to liberty?” /// because as this situation shows the question is never in a vacuum==rather it is a balancing of competing rights.
How is the liberty interest of the raped 13 year old to be protected, what of their liberty rights?
I don’t know how this rule might vary by State but can a mere phone call provide a reasonable basis for a search warrant? I don’t know, but that seems reasonable to me based on all the facts? Seems to me cops have come to my door several times in response to complaints about noise? Is that an invasion of my liberty? yes, and its reasonable and necessary.
Now, here we have a history with this “church” and there was not one phone call but rather a series of phone calls.
My liberty interest is best protected if cops can get a search warrant in such cases and make an appropriate search.
The opposite is not liberty, it is anarchy.
#8, Gig,
Good call.
The other point is that Child Endangerment is a civil issue. There does not need to be a criminal charge to warrant a child being in danger and removed from the home. If during the investigation of a child in danger the investigator / police discover criminal activity, that evidence would hold up as incidental and validly obtained if it relates to the child endangerment.
The same tactic has been endorsed by the Supreme Court. If the police stop you for speeding (a civil offense), they do have limited powers to search your car. Any evidence obtained from the search is admissible.
Looks like a fair number of commenters still haven’t learned Google is your friend. In fact, Swinton has been arrested twice before for hoax phone calls to police departments.
#9 – I don’t don’t doubt the ACLU will venture an opinion before the court. Just be aware that defending the Bill of Rights already is more than a full time job in Texas.
#10 –
“Seems to me cops have come to my door several times in response to complaints about noise?”
You must not be playing Toby Keith full-bore…
“There was not one phone call but rather a series of phone calls.”
The search warrant and pretty much every report on the grounds for the warrant says one phone call. You have a link?
#13–keane-o. thanks for the correction. I was referring to a Nightline piece 2-3 nights ago that showed a woman activist who was involved in the case. She was in contact with the 16 yo girl for a number of months before the raid was made and was working with the police. That has nothing to do with what was in the search warrant.
Facts are important. Any comment on the theory?
If they cannot substantiate any evidence of child abuse or endangerment then nothing else can be done here, IF the police types follow the law. There is such a thing, I believe in every state, called fruits of the poison tree. If you do uncover and substantiate evidence of a crime because of this, unrelated to the call or not, then these jokers can be broken up and good riddance!
I mean, if it’s the least little bit true that we have polygamy or we have sex with a minor then throw the book at them. I find it hard to fathom the minds that can so willingly give up freedom of will, especially when it comes to having seriously underage daughters bedded down with older, lusting guys doing the (not really) “lord’s work.” I refuse to capitalize that l. But this is also the expected knee-jerk reaction. Officials may not have this one right so the only reason for not letting everyone go if they don’t have any evidence is not having egg on their faces if they aren’t proven wrong. And that may be enough of a reason to cover up any mistakes they make. And we all know that those in power have a penchant for doing just that these days.
I hope the truth comes out eventually.
#15–gmknobl==I’m not sure what you’re saying “but” lets assume the search warrant is invalid and a poisonous tree. If I knew that was true before the raid, I would still do it. I don’t think the poison fruit would extend to protecting whatever “victims” are inside the ranch–kiddies being saved/educated they have choices will be accomplished. Prosecuting the nutbags is not as important. They will violate the law again, and by then, maybe the ducks could be gathered and lined up correctly.
#9, Ah-yea, I think we are already in trouble, and a lot of it is the result of arm-chair generals.
#12, Keane-o, How in the world are the police supposed to know who is calling? Are we going to have to submit some sort of un-forgeable identification to the telephone before we make a phone call? Do the police have a time machine so they can go back to when the call came in and warn the people taking the call that this one is a crank call?
No, I’m not going out of my way to defend the cops. This same requirement for knowing now what hindsight will tell us tomorrow is exactly why shooting a plain clothes cop acting like a mugger or home invader is illegal. (The hell with “announcing”, anyone can claim to be a cop, and get away with it if he kills all the witnesses. Cops need to be in uniform, and fakes should be vigorously and violently discouraged, by both cops and civilians. And dump the ninja outfits.)
#17 – read the article – please. The Texas Rangers went to Co Sprngs as the result of an FBI trace.
Ever heard of caller ID? Every CSR system that’s zip code-based, area code-based, uses it to switch calls. Sure you can beat it. Doesn’t look like Swinton was swift enough to do so.
Is this tech you never heard of? It’s decades old – and a lot easier now compared to when you had to trot around and check relay records.
Heres a case seemingly right on point regarding anonymous erroneous phone call based warrants.
In this case, the warrant was invalid, but the evidence was admissable as it was gathered in good faith.
Perfect outcome.
http://tinyurl.com/4zl8lo
Bobbo, warrants based on anon phone calls make me very uneasy. I keep picturing Deputy Slime-wad sitting at his desk and calling Deputy Yuk-yuk at his desk about 10 feet away with an “anonomous” phone call.
I’m sure the regular posters can come up with many ways this can be abused.
Wow,
All the evidence against those people is gonna be inadmissible and those kids get to go home.
If this is true, expect 100 million dollar lawsuit when this is over.
#21–Phillep, yes that’s a valid concern and probably why the warrant was invalidated? And should it ever be proven the cops were falsifying the requests for search warrants==they could go to jail.
I don’t think there is more that can reasonably be done? A lead is a lead. The phone calls lead only to investigation or searches==not arrest or conviction.
I would not want it any other way==except in that imaginary perfect world.
A useful rule of personal restraint is to think of something better before criticizing anything. It makes you think.
Would YOU PHILLEP say that police should not respond to anonymous tips at all?–or how should they respond? Log them in–do nothing?
Joe–my post said admissable.
Bobbo, the cops have to get caught before they could be punished. Aren’t we seeing reports of crooked cops and DAs framing people for crimes for years before being caught? How many more are there? How many just take shortcuts, fudging just a bit, without being caught?
I would not say I was “uneasy” if I thought anon calls were always bad or if they were not sometimes necessary.
#25–Phillep===take a stand!!!!!!
Would you do anything different than todays system? If so what?
No response will be taken as “No.”
# 9 GigG
I think you hit it on the head.
According the police, more than 20 of the girls, either conceived or gave birth, before they were 16. There is a culture of young girls being impregnated by older men.
This is certainly going to go on for a while. I agree with #20 (bobbo, a truly excellent post), #21 and #25 Phillip, (where are the checks and balances?). I was in traffic court a while back (simple ticket, nothing really exciting) and in the courtroom was a guy who was caught speeding. During the “trial” the guy was unable so examine any evidence that he was actually speeding, nor was he allowed at the time to approach the cop to look at his radar gun to verify he was speeding. In fact, there was no evidence at all that he broke the law. He had no criminal record nor any reason to believe he was lying. It was his word against the cop’s. Of course, he lost. He couldn’t win. The trial was a sham.
This is my main worry, where are the checks and balances? Do we already live in a police state, but because the police are by and large benign, we tolerate it?
To sound a note of caution to #28, we must be careful not to repeat the multiple mistakes of the past.
The press LOVES this type of occurrence, and stokes hysteria for better ratings. I’ve already seen this with the lady who escaped the compound 20 years earlier who was saying all sorts of things. Not someone I would call impartial.
This link makes the point all too clear.
http://tinyurl.com/2odunc
Now to make my personal point clear. If these people are the pervs they have been portrayed to be, then I hope they go away for a very long time.
I also hope that before the police break in my door that they have checked the facts first, and I have some way to face my accuser.
#29–Ah Yea—oh, so close, but no. Police break down your door, the DA checks the facts, you appear before a Judge for arraignment, months go by, you are pressured with Jail for 20 years or agree to something much less===like that game show calculated to get you to take the lower penalty as the statistical best choice, and if after all this you still refuse to pay the State with time or money or both, then maybe you get to confront your accuser.
Sometimes, it sucks so bad, its hard to believe its actually the best system available?
Oh!==any doubt they are pervs?