Despite Evidence, Child Porn Charges Could Be Dropped

[Ryan Thunder]

Maybe you should read the original article. It isn’t clear that the items really did just fall out, and the screener admitted to searching further on his own initiative.

So the guy's argument boils down to "You weren't supposed to find the evidence that I did this, therefore I am innocent."

How the fuck is that supposed to make sense?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Maybe you should read the original article. It isn’t clear that the items really did just fall out, and the screener admitted to searching further on his own initiative.

So the guy's argument boils down to "You weren't supposed to find the evidence that I did this, therefore I am innocent."

How the fuck is that supposed to make sense?

Because there are rules of engagement, or routine orders that must be followed, irregardless whether there is an act that is wrong or not.

[Ryan Thunder]

Isn't the entire point of a trial to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty?

In this case, the procedure not being followed to get the evidence doesn't change the implications of said evidence. So how is it 'effective' to declare it invalid?

If the person who brought the evidence to light obtained it incorrectly, then that should be dealt with separately.

[Gil Hamilton]

Isn't the entire point of a trial to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty?

In this case, the procedure not being followed to get the evidence doesn't change the implications of said evidence. So how is it 'effective' to declare it invalid?

If the person who brought the evidence to light obtained it incorrectly, then that should be dealt with separately.

Surely you must be familiar with due process. Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court. Alot of court cases have been thrown out because the way the evidence was gathered was illegal. If that turns out to be the case here and there is no other evidence, we can't hold him.

[Gil Hamilton]

So? There are threats to aviation that can fit in an envelope, so searching envelopes is within TSA's scope. They don't need specific information suggesting that every gym bag has explosives to put it through an x-ray.

You are going to have to be a bit more specific than merely asserting this. Unless you believe that a sufficiently strongly worded letter is enough to bring down a plane, you are going to have to qualify that that threat is to justify the TSA going through people personal documents. After all:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Given that the TSA is a government law enforcement agency, the 4th Amendment certainly applies. Therefore, you have to prove that thumbing through peoples documents is a reasonable search under the TSA's mandate or the evidence is illegally obtained.


Editorializing: Frankly, the TSA shouldn't have the power to search anything and everything in a person's bags unless there is a very specific reason to do so. Theft from luggage skyrocketed when the TSA was formed, because as it turns out, more than a few TSA guards have sticky fingers. This has gotten to the point that it's safer to simply mail your luggage to your destination rather than fly with it.

[Ryan Thunder]

Surely you must be familiar with due process. Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court. Alot of court cases have been thrown out because the way the evidence was gathered was illegal. If that turns out to be the case here and there is no other evidence, we can't hold him.

I was under the impression that illegal methods for obtaining evidence were illegal because their use called the veracity of the evidence into question. Torturing a confession out of somebody, to pick an example, is not a legal method of obtaining evidence because they could easily torture the defendant into admitting to just about anything.

This isn't like that, however. That the worker violated the defendant's privacy in obtaining the evidence does not change its substance.

[Broomstick]

Surely you must be familiar with due process. Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court. Alot of court cases have been thrown out because the way the evidence was gathered was illegal. If that turns out to be the case here and there is no other evidence, we can't hold him.

I was under the impression that illegal methods for obtaining evidence were illegal because their use called the veracity of the evidence into question. Torturing a confession out of somebody, to pick an example, is not a legal method of obtaining evidence because they could easily torture the defendant into admitting to just about anything.

This isn't like that, however. That the worker violated the defendant's privacy in obtaining the evidence does not change its substance.

While the facts remain clear however they are unearthed, it is also FACT that illegally obtained evidence no matter what that evidence is is NOT admissible in US courts. This was done specifically to discourage illegalities on the part of law enforcement. It has nothing to do with evidence "veracity" and everything to do with preserving legal rights.

So, yes, the evidence proves he's guilty but because it wasn't legally obtained the bastard goes free. That's the way the law works here.

[Andrew J.]

Surely you must be familiar with due process. Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court. Alot of court cases have been thrown out because the way the evidence was gathered was illegal. If that turns out to be the case here and there is no other evidence, we can't hold him.

I was under the impression that illegal methods for obtaining evidence were illegal because their use called the veracity of the evidence into question. Torturing a confession out of somebody, to pick an example, is not a legal method of obtaining evidence because they could easily torture the defendant into admitting to just about anything.

This isn't like that, however. That the worker violated the defendant's privacy in obtaining the evidence does not change its substance.

First of all, exclusion comes under the reasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment due process clause. And torturing someone to compel a confession would also be a Fifth Amendment issue.

As Broomstick said, exclusion is a method of deterrence-it's supposed to discourage agents of the law from illegal searches and seizures, not serve the truth-finding function of the court.

[PainRack]

If the judge finds the TSA search was illegal, that means all the evidence, including the videos of McCarty having sex with boys would be thrown out and could not be used against him.

So the evidence is clear and incontrovertible, but we can have it thrown out because of how we acquired it...

Nah. Can the judge tell them to go fuck themselves without lube?

There are reasons for such legislation to be in place. Cops "planting" evidence for example..... its just that in this scenario, the reason for such legislation has outrun.... reason.

[Zed Snardbody]

The agency is schizophrenic in what it wants from the checkpoint. Original roll out plans were to create an agency similar to Customs, with armed sworn officers. This was quickly changed when someone somewhere realized that one the training costs let alone equipment to certify, arm, and cloth 60,000 federal law enforcement officers would be prohibitive, it also wouldn't be a good idea to have guns on the hips of people that were going to be up close and personal with people for 8 hours a day.

The next plan was that TSA would be converted into a regulatory and oversight agency within a year or two and the checkpoints would be turned back over to private companies. Official guidelines for uniforms stated "Stay away from dark colors, keep the colors warm and un-intimidating to keep a non threatening atmosphere".

This just goes to show an overall lack of forethought when it comes to the checkpoint, right down to the fact that we're not expected to still be here. The security checkpoint, and the officers ability to search your carry-ons and person skips the fourth amendment because as part of the travel process you have a reasonable expectation of search. You can decline, turn around and walk away up until the point you come through the metal detector, or your bag goes in the X ray. Its an active process on the passengers part. Same as going into a private building with a metal detector and a security guard. Thats how it used to be at airports to, submitting to a search at the airport is part of the contract you sign by booking with the airline.

What changed the rules was federalizing the process, with uniformed federal employees, and the text of ATSA. With this whole laptop business, a lot of it comes down to training again. It sounds like the officer could not articulate why the bag containing the laptop was opened. Which is really easy, but because the checkpoint officers don't get that sort of training like a police officer, or a retail loss prevention officer, or even a decent mid level private security guard, the judge is stuck, and the defense knows it.

The officer could have said that the guys bag was opened and the laptop removed because passengers are advised to remove laptop computers and other such large electronics from their bags and run them separately. Because he did not, the bag and lop top had to be resubmitted for x ray separately. In the course of removing the lap top I observed.....

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that might have saved a whole lot of headache.

[Zed Snardbody]

Different jobs, different things to protect. Customs, self explanatory. TSA is there specifically for the security of the airplane or something transportation related. Still trying to figure out why TSA handled security at an Obama rally before the presidential election... Local law enforcement has general jurisdiction over all law enforcement within their vicinity.

USSS just uses TSA officers for crowd screening. It frees up their uniformed people and what not. They actually prefer to use TSA since they're daily on the X Ray and pat down people, about the only people that really do, so they don't have to bother with training their own people or brining in locals that don't have nearly the same time or daily experience.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Isn't the entire point of a trial to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty?

In this case, the procedure not being followed to get the evidence doesn't change the implications of said evidence. So how is it 'effective' to declare it invalid?

If the person who brought the evidence to light obtained it incorrectly, then that should be dealt with separately.

Except that it never is. What should be, in a magical universe be the case is entirely irrelevant to what can functionally occur. Evidence gets thrown out because the police made a mistake all the time. If prosecutors went around charging police for what are often honest mistakes they could not do their jobs because the police would not be willing to work with them.

Simply having the evidence thrown out is the best way to discourage deliberate illegalities, and protect the rights of the accused from good faith errors.

I was under the impression that illegal methods for obtaining evidence were illegal because their use called the veracity of the evidence into question. Torturing a confession out of somebody, to pick an example, is not a legal method of obtaining evidence because they could easily torture the defendant into admitting to just about anything.

This isn't like that, however. That the worker violated the defendant's privacy in obtaining the evidence does not change its substance.

See above, moron.

[Bilbo]

In this case, the "search" consisted purely of thumbing through an envelope, which doesn't even strike me as being a search in general and certainly falls within TSA's mandate.

That might take a lot of legal arguing.

"You are supposed to be looking for explosives or weapons. Which one did you expect to find while thumbing through the manila envelope of my client?"

Sounds like a pretty reasonable argument by a defense lawyer. Especially when you consider that said envelope has already gone through the x-ray machine.

[Zed Snardbody]

Update:

A federal judge has thrown out evidence from a baggage search at the Hilo airport last year that discovered photographs of naked children.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright yesterday ruled that the search by federal Transportation Security Administration officers went beyond the scope of their duties to find weapons and explosives.

The judge also concluded that a TSA officer's recollections of the search were vague and contradictory.

The August 2008 search was of a bag belonging to Simon Jasper McCarty, who lives in the United Kingdom. He was in Hawai'i to give a seminar on drum circles. He has been in custody since his arrest at the airport by Big Island police.

Prosecutors did not comment on the ruling yesterday.

Link