Found Deceased FL - Madeline Soto, 13, Missing Child Alert, 13500 blk Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, 26 Feb 2024 *arrest* #7

New Posts

He can plead the 5th. He doesn't need to talk or incriminate himself further. Unless he wants to loop in Jenn and point fingers at her culpability, he has nothing.

I would be horrified at any offer of a plea deal. I read those charges and the details. They made me want to throw up. I imagine Florida can do better than that.
 
Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc said:
Do we have any ideas on what kind of defence he will use?
Any excuse he gives will be a lie or an embellished version of a half-truth (aka, a lie), so what on earth will he say?
I do not remember who, I'm sorry, but someone posted that the not guilty is just a procedure regarding the next judicial phase.
What does that that mean, in the grand scheme of things? As in what decision is made off the NG plea at this stage when he clearly has no excuse? What benefit does it give him towards anything to plead NG at this stage?
ETA: Clarified question
Click to expand...
A NG at this stage gives his attorney time to process discovery in search of any possible defense. IME is rare for defendants to plead guilty at arraignment. In fact, it's typical to plead NG (and they can bc in the eyes of the law, there's been no trial -- they aren't pleading INNOCENT!). I wish the guilty ones would always plead guilty and save everyone the cost and trauma of a trial, but in the absence of that, pleading NG is just a place holder, giving counsel time to sift through discovery. It's their job after all, not to get guilty people off, but you make sure the State isn't sloppy or unfair in presenting their case.

My elementary understanding.

JMO
 
lightofmine99 said:
Initially pleading guilty is customary but I really wonder what the defense would be if this did indeed go to trial. I suppose it hinges on if anyone else was involved.
Click to expand...
The only possibility I see for SS is his attorney contesting whether SS "gave" the phone to LE knowing it would be searched. His remark, "oh, BTW, I accidently reset it" to me indicates that he indeed knew it would be searched to aid in finding Madeline. How the defense will handle it though is a very different question.

IF the defense can make the case SS wasn't properly informed and LE loses the phone and all that is on it, LE is in serious trouble in the case. I think they'd probably still have him on murder. I don't think LE will lose that argument. I think I recall recordings being mentioned. I fervently hope LE has recorded background proving their access to the phone meets all legal requirements.

But until it's been examined and argued thoroughly, we won't know.
 
CuriousCricket said:
The only possibility I see for SS is his attorney contesting whether SS "gave" the phone to LE knowing it would be searched. His remark, "oh, BTW, I accidently reset it" to me indicates that he indeed knew it would be searched to aid in finding Madeline. How the defense will handle it though is a very different question.

IF the defense can make the case SS wasn't properly informed and LE loses the phone and all that is on it, LE is in serious trouble in the case. I think they'd probably still have him on murder. I don't think LE will lose that argument. I think I recall recordings being mentioned. I fervently hope LE has recorded background proving their access to the phone meets all legal requirements.

But until it's been examined and argued thoroughly, we won't know.
Click to expand...
This is all my opinion, but I’m pretty sure LE would have been careful to follow protocol in obtaining the phone because they know evidence can be thrown out otherwise. SS gave consent to search his phone - beyond that he can’t qualify what they can and can’t look through. Besides that, I’m betting there were other devices/drives that contained other recordings that would have been obtained with a warrant.

I don’t think defense would be able to successfully argue that LE obtained the recordings on his phone illegally. Consent to search is consent to search.

And, LE has said numerous times there’s a lot of information they haven’t released so I’m betting there’s even more evidence we haven’t even been made aware of yet.

ETA: as far as whether or not SS gave LE his phone without knowing it would be searched - I’m pretty sure one of the affidavits mentioned that he consented to LE looking through his phone, but mentioned he had accidentally performed a factory reset that morning. So they had consent.
 
photoprose1122 said:
This is all my opinion, but I’m pretty sure LE would have been careful to follow protocol in obtaining the phone because they know evidence can be thrown out otherwise. SS gave consent to search his phone - beyond that he can’t qualify what they can and can’t look through. Besides that, I’m betting there were other devices/drives that contained other recordings that would have been obtained with a warrant.

I don’t think defense would be able to successfully argue that LE obtained the recordings on his phone illegally. Consent to search is consent to search.

And, LE has said numerous times there’s a lot of information they haven’t released so I’m betting there’s even more evidence we haven’t even been made aware of yet.

ETA: as far as whether or not SS gave LE his phone without knowing it would be searched - I’m pretty sure one of the affidavits mentioned that he consented to LE looking through his phone, but mentioned he had accidentally performed a factory reset that morning. So they had consent.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly your thinking so.

Been there. Done that. But things just happen. My lesson was when I was so adamant the Killer of Molly Tibbets had been properly Mirandized. Surely, right? It's so basic. Well, not that time.

I very sincerely hope everything is properly processed here. But I now know sometimes in life, stuff just happens.

The only thing I can see that would help SS even a little would be that phone.
 
CuriousCricket said:
I understand perfectly your thinking so.

Been there. Done that. But things just happen. My lesson was when I was so adamant the Killer of Molly Tibbets had been properly Mirandized. Surely, right? It's so basic. Well, not that time.

I very sincerely hope everything is properly processed here. But I now know sometimes in life, stuff just happens.

The only thing I can see that would help SS even a little would be that phone.
Click to expand...
I was blown away when it was announced in the MT case.

The FBI was heavily involved, in this case, especially in the forensics. US Marshals handled the transport to ID. Let's hope the I's are dotted and the T's crossed.
 
photoprose1122 said:
This is all my opinion, but I’m pretty sure LE would have been careful to follow protocol in obtaining the phone because they know evidence can be thrown out otherwise. SS gave consent to search his phone - beyond that he can’t qualify what they can and can’t look through. Besides that, I’m betting there were other devices/drives that contained other recordings that would have been obtained with a warrant.

I don’t think defense would be able to successfully argue that LE obtained the recordings on his phone illegally. Consent to search is consent to search.

And, LE has said numerous times there’s a lot of information they haven’t released so I’m betting there’s even more evidence we haven’t even been made aware of yet.

ETA: as far as whether or not SS gave LE his phone without knowing it would be searched - I’m pretty sure one of the affidavits mentioned that he consented to LE looking through his phone, but mentioned he had accidentally performed a factory reset that morning. So they had consent.
Click to expand...
If SS agreed to let LE search his phone and it was "accidentally" factory reset. would SS think that's all he consented to was a scroll through an empty phone? The police would need a reason to search deeper, wouldn't they? even if they found nothing initially, would the phone being wiped/ reset give the police probable cause or reasonable grounds to search deeper, run it through celubrite? or would initial consent include everything even celubrite? Just wondering if permission to search must include specifics.
 
Last edited:
I dont know if this is the best page but this speaks to exigent circumstances. What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?.
had to delete 2nd link, because it ended in .ca, need to make sure it's florida law. this one is ok,(from Florida) maybe some lawyers on here can speak to it.
Either way, after reading this, I think the police are fine with their search,(IMO)

Warrantless Searches | Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer The Ansara Law Firm

Free Consultation - Call (954) 761-4011 - The Ansara Law Firm aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal & Crime Defense cases. Warrantless Searches - Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer
www.ansaralaw.com www.ansaralaw.com
 
Last edited:
ttjo said:
If SS agreed to let LE search his phone and it was "accidentally" factory reset. would SS think that's all he consented to was a scroll through an empty phone? The police would need a reason to search deeper, wouldn't they? even if they found nothing initially, would the phone being wiped/ reset give the police probable cause or reasonable grounds to search deeper, run it through celubrite? or would initial consent include everything even celubrite? Just wondering if permission to search must include specifics.
Click to expand...
I think consent is consent. IMO anyways. For example, if LE asked to search your house and you gave consent thinking they wouldn’t find the hidden body under your floorboards but they found it anyway, you couldn’t argue that you didn’t give them permission to search under the floorboards. If SS gave them permission to look through his phone, that includes its entirety; it’s his own error to think they wouldn’t find anything on it because of his “accidental” factory reset.
 
It's also possible that he gave them consent so they seized it. Waited for a warrant to search it.

I don't see where he has a defense at all. These are just court machinations. He'll never see the outside of prison.

JMO
 
photoprose1122 said:
I think consent is consent. IMO anyways. For example, if LE asked to search your house and you gave consent thinking they wouldn’t find the hidden body under your floorboards but they found it anyway, you couldn’t argue that you didn’t give them permission to search under the floorboards. If SS gave them permission to look through his phone, that includes its entirety; it’s his own error to think they wouldn’t find anything on it because of his “accidental” factory reset.
Click to expand...
what Megnut said below. !! Then no one needs to worry about any permissions.
 
Last edited:
Megnut said:
It's also possible that he gave them consent so they seized it. Waited for a warrant to search it.

I don't see where he has a defense at all. These are just court machinations. He'll never see the outside of prison.

JMO
Click to expand...
That's what I'm hoping, I am pretty sure LE has this all handled. Seize it and request any extra warrants needed to search, they had the grounds. This wouldn't be their first Rodeo.
 
Last edited:
photoprose1122 said:
I don’t think defense would be able to successfully argue that LE obtained the recordings on his phone illegally. Consent to search is consent to search.
Click to expand...
This subject was discussed earlier on this thread, but I'll repeat myself anyway.
It is similar to waiving your rights, the instant certain words are said, the interview/interrogation is over.

Consent to search is fragile, it can be withdrawn at any time and it doesn't require an explicit statement such as "I cancel my consent".
For example, if he reached for his phone back while the officer was looking at it, consent is gone and nothing further should be looked at without a warrant. I already brought up the possibility of a search of the phone continuing because of exigent circumstances. An assault is seen on video, the victim of the assault is missing, could information on the phone lead to finding/saving the missing person?

Hopefully, everything was done properly to keep the video in evidence.
We don't know the exact words said by anyone yet so there is no way to weight the outcome of a motion by defense. Defense would be negligent to not attempt to suppress the video, they are just doing their job.
My opinion, I think he would still be found guilty of the murder and we haven't even seen the forensics yet.
MOO
 
NoSpoonFeeding said:
This subject was discussed earlier on this thread, but I'll repeat myself anyway.
It is similar to waiving your rights, the instant certain words are said, the interview/interrogation is over.

Consent to search is fragile, it can be withdrawn at any time and it doesn't require an explicit statement such as "I cancel my consent".
For example, if he reached for his phone back while the officer was looking at it, consent is gone and nothing further should be looked at without a warrant. I already brought up the possibility of a search of the phone continuing because of exigent circumstances. An assault is seen on video, the victim of the assault is missing, could information on the phone lead to finding/saving the missing person?

Hopefully, everything was done properly to keep the video in evidence.
We don't know the exact words said by anyone yet so there is no way to weight the outcome of a motion by defense. Defense would be negligent to not attempt to suppress the video, they are just doing their job.
My opinion, I think he would still be found guilty of the murder and we haven't even seen the forensics yet.
MOO
Click to expand...
Oh I totally agree defense would be negligent not to suppress the video - I just personally don’t think it would stick. Cases have certainly been thrown out on technicalities in the past, but with how close LE has kept the investigation to the vest I want to believe they’ve been careful to cover all their bases in order to build a solid case.
 
NoSpoonFeeding said:
This subject was discussed earlier on this thread, but I'll repeat myself anyway.
It is similar to waiving your rights, the instant certain words are said, the interview/interrogation is over.

Consent to search is fragile, it can be withdrawn at any time and it doesn't require an explicit statement such as "I cancel my consent".
For example, if he reached for his phone back while the officer was looking at it, consent is gone and nothing further should be looked at without a warrant. I already brought up the possibility of a search of the phone continuing because of exigent circumstances. An assault is seen on video, the victim of the assault is missing, could information on the phone lead to finding/saving the missing person?

Hopefully, everything was done properly to keep the video in evidence.
We don't know the exact words said by anyone yet so there is no way to weight the outcome of a motion by defense. Defense would be negligent to not attempt to suppress the video, they are just doing their job.
My opinion, I think he would still be found guilty of the murder and we haven't even seen the forensics yet.
MOO
Click to expand...
Thank you, that makes perfect sense and sorry you had to repeat yourself usually I keep up but I appreciate the clarification.
 
photoprose1122 said:
Oh I totally agree defense would be negligent not to suppress the video - I just personally don’t think it would stick. Cases have certainly been thrown out on technicalities in the past, but with how close LE has kept the investigation to the vest I want to believe they’ve been careful to cover all their bases in order to build a solid case.
Click to expand...
I want to believe the same thing, and I think most all LE knows when to pause and get a warrant. Early on though, it was a teenager who did not come home from school and an officer being shown a timeline on a cellphone. After that, we have no precise information about the sequence of events to do with the phone. It would be a great disappointment to lose any evidence for the assault (I'm not expecting that this will happen) but the murder case has devastating evidence.
There may also be forensic evidence of an SA. Suppressing evidence in this case might not even result in the dropping of that charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 106 more.
Total: 3,544 (members: 107, guests: 3,437)

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
3,437
Total visitors
3,544
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,157
Messages
17,999,802
Members
229,324
Latest member
Websleuth0000
Back
Top