Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Lunchtime Quickie | NBA Owners Approve Move »

Friday, April 18, 2008

Holy Shit!: The FLDS Mess Gets Messier

posted by on April 18 at 12:19 PM

You know that call from an abused 16-year-old girl that launched the whole FLDS mess?

It may have come from a 33-year-old woman in Colorado.

Lawyers, help me out: If this turns out to be true, will it poison the whole search? And will Texas authorities just have to hand the kids back to their rapey, rapey parents?

RSS icon Comments

1

Lol. this is all to hilarious. Anyways when is somone going to bring up the fact that this has been going on for years and all of sudden everyone is in an uproar, shocked, and upstet about their lifestyle.
Why is it that everyone is treating this like they just landed here yesterday from Mars.
I think I know the answer. because every bible thumpin aunty and Uncle of everyone always spouts how important the bible is and we all know Noah had a bunch of wives etc etc. No one wants to contest the sanctity of their religion compared to the Polygamists gruop from Texas. They don't like the contrast even though it is evidently their right in their face.
Including all the shocked newscasters and journalists covering this episode.
'Lepricons found in Texas indeed.'
Thanks showbiz tonight.haha

Posted by Harem Scarem | April 18, 2008 12:27 PM
2

I don't think they would have to return the kids. While prosecution for child abuse generally requires admissible evidence, simply taking kids out of an abusive environment is not so constrained. Since the proceedings are not criminal some constitutional protections do not apply. Especially those relating to the rights of the accused, since there are no accused. The state is simply deciding what is in the best interests of the kids.

Plus if they manage to get the kids to talk, then that would possibly be evidence enough.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 12:29 PM
3

Re: 1: Knowing something's going on and being able to prosecute it are two very different things. (See The Wire, or the life of Tom Sneddon.)

Posted by David Schmader | April 18, 2008 12:30 PM
4

Yeah, David, that would be like saying the police are required to return contraband that they seized without probable cause. You don't get to keep your crack or your dirty bomb just because they took it without a warrant. Their duty to not place the kids back in a dangerous environment is independent of the rules of evidence. Although if they aren't able to prosecute then it won't take them long to have another 400 kids.

Posted by elenchos | April 18, 2008 12:38 PM
5

I'm a lawyer. I don’t know Texas law, but in Washington, whether the search was good will turn on whether there is some fatal flaw in the application for the warrant the cops gave the judge. It’s not going to turn on whether they can find the chick who made the call, or even whether she exists. It will depend on whether the cops acted reasonably in seeking the warrant based on the information they had. If I was reviewing this, I’d be looking at whether the caller supplied the sort of corroborating details that would be known by someone in that situation, and I might be looking for some other corroborating information Normally, an anonymous call to an abuse hotline would not be enough to get a search warrant. An anonymous call from a teenager presenting a profile consistent with battered women syndrome? Yeah, I think that could do it.

Posted by Ratatosk | April 18, 2008 12:46 PM
6

Elenchos: Emotionally I agree with you, but legally, can the kids equal contraband argument really hold water? (Parents have a right to their children in a way that drug users/dealers don't have a right to drugs.)

Still, I imagine all the documented underage pregnancies might add up to evidence of a dangerous environment...

Posted by David Schmader | April 18, 2008 12:48 PM
7

The threshold question is whether there is proof of child abuse. The 33 year old woman is an issue in the sense that without a witness, how are they going to prove "abuse". Child Protective Services can say allege abuse, but with all those lawyers, they are going to have to show more than an affidavit from a social worker.

In the sense of prohibiting evidence found during the search, her testimony won't matter much. The court may look at all evidence in a child custody/abuse situation.

I hope they do a similar raid on all those suburban parents who allow their kids to eat unhealthy processed foods and watch/listen to violent videos and music. That is some abuse that needs to stop.

Posted by Medina | April 18, 2008 12:50 PM
8

@6, But the placement of the kids is independent of any criminal charges and not subject to usual rules of evidence. Courts don't take away custody without evidence of mistreatment, but that evidence need not be gathered in accordance with constitutional or evidence rules.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 12:53 PM
9

Re: 8: Ah, good to know, thank you.

Posted by David Schmader | April 18, 2008 12:56 PM
10

It's like if Dirty Harry kicks in some punk's door with no warrant and finds a Hansel and Gretel being cooked in an oven, the illegal search might prevent prosecution, but it does not require the courts to put them back in the oven.

Posted by elenchos | April 18, 2008 1:00 PM
11

This might need to bring into the argument that maybe the Bible is just effed up and that as long as people live by what the words say and the lifestyles in the bible are held as next to God(Noah, David, Solomon, Moses) some people are actually going to go out and live that way.
Anyway its been going on for years and suddenly this action/raid/story broke out 2 weeks ago including another compound was just recently raided as well.
All so the news can say how shocked they are, yet hype up the bible belt and what everyone likes to call the Real America.

Also can you imagine the shitstorm of press vs politician if Romney had won the bid instead of McCain. haha that Mormon would have to explain hiself and his religion a little more than Hillary or Barack would. Man I wish the Repubs had voted Romney in. this would have been a radical frenzy year in republican politics with this Texas mormon, polygamy slash religion fiasco. and yes Mormons are polygamists.

Posted by Harem Scarem | April 18, 2008 1:04 PM
12

(10: If the cops had kicked in the door and found kids actively being boned, that would be one thing. But they found a bunch of kids swearing everything's fine, everything's fine...)

Posted by David Schmader | April 18, 2008 1:08 PM
13

@11, But if we do that it'll destroy the dreams of countless middle age men with teenage daughters and an unlocked liquor cabinet.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 1:17 PM
14

The issue is whether there was probable cause to execute a search on private property. If there wasn't, then the rights of the owner were violated and the normalrule is any evidence flowing from that is not admissible. Whether there was probable cause could turn on what the anon. caller said -- if cops acted in good faith and had no reason to disbelieve her lie that she was a teenager on the premises -- maybe there was probable cause.
But I'd personally not be too comfortable with that because that would mean in the future the cops would jsut use the same technique and call themselves and lie about6 doing it and bingo, there's no 4th amendment rights anymore period.

And the notion there's no 4th amendment rights becuase it's child custody ? Hmm, not sure about that either. There's always bad shit and harm at stake -- this is the Cheney and Al Gonzalez argument and now we adopt it??

There is also a factual difference between Hansel getting cooked RIGHT NOW and "they created an environment in which it is likely that in the future some of these girls will get statutorily raped" as one is certain and now and the other is not certain and is not now and is not imminent.

Posted by unPC | April 18, 2008 1:32 PM
15

@14, Those protections only apply in criminal matters. In child welfare proceedings there is no defendant and no one is charged with a crime (though criminal charges are often brought as well those are separate proceedings). That's why the cases are captioned "in re XXXXX" as oppsoed to "State vs. XXXXX". Cops can still be sanctioned and disciplined and subject to civil and criminal charges of they grossly overstep there bounds, but the evidence collected as to the welfare of the child can and will be looked at.

And this isn't a new argument this is the way its been for decades or more.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 1:38 PM
16

There's not going to be any evidence, though, because the kids are not cooperating with the authorities. They're not even giving them their right names, is my understanding; they're all deliberately changing their stories every five seconds. They might be able to get them on some kind of contempt charge.

Posted by Fnarf | April 18, 2008 1:44 PM
17

Hey Giffy: Re: Fnarf's comment above: Is there any way the documented underage pregnancies (some in girls as young as 13) could function as evidence of sexual abuse?

Posted by David Schmader | April 18, 2008 1:50 PM
18

@16, the fact that some of the kids are pregnant might go a long way, especially when DNA tests show that the fathers are much older.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 1:50 PM
19

what is to prevent an unrelated party (or police plant) from making calls as a basis for search warrants? that does seem a bit fishy....

Posted by infrequent | April 18, 2008 2:04 PM
20

Texas does not have a provision for good faith in this area - many states allow evidence collected if law enforcement acted in good faith, that is, that they acted on information that seemed credible at the time. Texas, does not allow for this so there may be some problems with the prosecutions if it turns out to have been a hoax that started it all.

Posted by Viking | April 18, 2008 2:07 PM
21

@18... but they cannot do a random dna test. one of the children would have to testify as to what happened. if they said their partner was underage, or refused to answer... ?

Posted by infrequent | April 18, 2008 2:11 PM
22

OK, OK, how about this metaphor.

Imagine just for the sake of argument a parallel situation where a cult of fundamentalist Mormons in Texas was forcing 13 year old girls into marriage and their compound was raided after a call from a 33 year old woman in Colorado pretending to be one of the abused kids. In that hypothetical situation, would the police be required to return the 400 kids to that compound if the tip failed the tests of probable cause?

Obviously not. See? Same basic scenario as that. That's why the call me the explainer.

Posted by elenchos | April 18, 2008 2:12 PM
23

A few cotton swabs and DNA genetic profiles would solve this whole thing relatively quickly, combined with birth certificates of the parties involved.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM
24

I thought that in past, similar cases, the adults had generally been jailed on counts of fraud-related crimes (welfare scams, tax evasion, basically the minutia of crimes resulting from getting public assistance for a family that can't legally be claimed as yours, since you're only legally married to on person, regardless of how many child brides you've taken).

At any rate, it seems like even if they can't prove the alleged abuses, these kids might not have anything to go home to and will end up in the system regardless. It's a shame, and I hope the men at the top is this pyramid do real time.

Posted by Dougsf | April 18, 2008 2:26 PM
25

@21, A pregnant 13 year old is pretty evidence of a crime, what with statutory rape and all, not to mention that in Texas it is probably still illegal for persons under a certain age to have sex period. I am pretty sure that would provide enough probable cause to test the whole lot of them. If you got a girl pregnant by an adult and you have DNA to prove it, testimony is irrelevant.

Posted by Giffy | April 18, 2008 2:27 PM
26

Bad move, Mr Schmader. By making that open-ended plea for legal advice, you've just made this a billable thread.

Some shyster is going to send you a nastyass bill.

Posted by michael strangeways | April 18, 2008 2:27 PM
27


eh, i thought 13 year olds could have sex with other 13 year olds...

Posted by infrequent | April 18, 2008 3:15 PM
28

@27,

These aren't 13 years olds having sex with 13 year olds. These are 30, 40, 50, 60 year olds having sex with 13 year olds.

The young men get kicked out of the community, are sent away to work to send money back, are promised that someday they might get a bride, and/or are offered the fatties and the developmentally disabled, and of the latter there may be plenty thanks to all the inbreeding.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 18, 2008 3:48 PM
29

yes. i'm just saying, a pregnant 13 year old is not proof of crime. this is a case where we all are pretty sure some serious crimes occurred, but are wondering if they can be proven. but, iirc, they didn't even find a pregnant 13 year old there. just a parent who would have been 13. so that's even not a smoking gun, so to speak.

Posted by infrequent | April 18, 2008 3:58 PM
30

The state can take DNA from minors, and depending on the judge can also take DNA from the fathers if they believe a crime has been committed, proving genetic connections and, thus, mass statuary rape, I believe.

And if nothing else, with DNA evidence, the police can nail them on welfare fraud which will send them up the river for a while.

Also, Harem, you made that 1st comment earlier today-and no one is biting.

PS: Why the hell was a 33 year old woman giving tips on things happening in Texas???? How did she know the location? And what in the world kind of motivation is there? Did they mention this in the article and I just missed it?

Posted by Marty | April 18, 2008 4:54 PM
31

the authorities better watch out here. if they continue to house and interrogate these kids in an unhealthful and stressful manner for months on end, they just might wind up with a minor "wako" on their hands. the governor needs to step in, and soon.

Posted by ellarosa | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).