GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #17 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you remember with Heather Elvis, didn't the households give consent? Or did they need warrants? I can't remember. I know with Leanne Bearden, no foul play suspected, people gave consent. Does it make a difference if foul play is suspected versus no foul play for searching private property in regards to having a warrant?

I don't recall any warrants in Heather's case not related to the current suspects. I think most people agree to have their properties searched, if asked, or do it themselves. I think it would be very difficult to get warrants for anyone's home or land if they were not connected in some way to the missing person. Jmo
 
In Kelli's case, there were organized searches in mass the days, for two weeks iirc, following her being reported missing (went missing wee hours on a Sat., not reported until mid-morning Monday). This phase is called 'search mode for an alive person'. Later it changes to 'recovery mode'. Later still, with LE and formal search parties involved, LE steps back and enters 'investigative mode'. In the meantime, volunteers continue to search.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't LE need a warrant in order to search private property? I know LE almost always puts out a plea for property owners to please search their properties and trusts civilians will do so.

In Jessica Ridgeway's case, LE conducted an in-home neighborhood search where most people were willing to open their doors, sheds, garages, etc. No warrants were issued during that phase.

I don't believe, in Kelli's case, the land searches included private property but, it seems, the searchers would ask for permission. If the answer was "no", they had to move on. So, it seems to me, they asked for permission to search the land where Kelli was eventually found, but their request was refused. Such a shame when considering the agony of not knowing was prolonged for her family and friends.

I just don't think LE can obtain warrants to search every private property within range.
Maybe, behind the scenes, LE notes and is suspicious of land owners who refuse searches of their property.
A land owner can claim they searched already I guess.

How does LE figure out if the land owner had anything to do with the crime or not?

they only need a warrant if you refuse to let them on your property. If they ask and you allow them to search its not a problem. I don't know the details and i'm not necessarily saying I would do what the property owner did but if it was a bunch of volunteers then you at least have to be careful 1) because the liability issue do exist and 2) You don't know who those ppl are 90% or them are probably genuine people but sometimes bad apples can get mixed up in there and people could be casing your property or damaging things or whatever.

To get a warrant if the property own refuses to let LE search they have to have some reason to think a search there would be helpful aka "probable cause" IDK what the rules are as far as how good of a reason they need.

i think LE ask civilians to search their property as a "force multiplier" and the trust them to a degree, but I quite certain that if they had good reason to search your property even if you said you already searched it they would still search it.
 
I should clarify. Plano Pd said on there twitter that there is no GJ hearing on this case. I am not so sure about this because I don't see why you submit evidence when you have no intent on having a hearing. BF did say that the evidence being submitted was on the inference case. This is on her Twitter. WS won't allow me to paste any links, so my apologies. I do agree with you that it is understood that a GJ indictment is for felonies and this charge is for a misdemeanor. It is confusing. LE says they won't be going to GJ on it, MSM says yes. I think it's a safe bet that they can't. But for the interference case, which they still can and proceed with they don't need Christina. That was my point. I have seen many cases file charges on the person hoping to leverage something.

Also, the thought crossed my mind, LE didn't want the GJ advertised. One of the reasons to bring evidence and people before a gj, is to protect the witnesses and the alleged suspect.
If LE senses there is a lot of fear in the air holding people back from testifying, advertising this step in the process seems illogical. No one should know or has to know who is to appear before the gj.
Depending on the situation, a person's safety may be at risk for going forth as a witness.

Someone posted earlier that the grand jury can hand down verdicts. That is false. There isn't a Judge involved in grand jury procedure.
 
It did seem like one day they expressed commitment and the next day announced that they were leaving. Now, 2 1/2 months later, you have leatherfoots searching areas that Equusearch missed. They had the drones here, apparently EA already had LE's attention, why didn't they use the much ballyhoo'd drones for another couple of days? I believe EQ does wonderful work, but who/what forced them out? Was PPD so focused on 'maintaining integrity of a crime scene' that they didn't even give EQ the time of day?

Think I'm caught up and didn't see this answered. I am really curious also why they left so quickly. I wonder now if they could come back since PPD seems to have a specific area they are looking at. JMO
 
With Christina being an adult, I am guessing it would take a lot more to get search warrants to search various properties or homes, than for a child missing, like Jessica, who they knew was almost certainly abducted from the start. Jmo

Good point, didn't even think about that aspect of searching.
What I'm trying to express is LE can conduct searches and ask people to cooperate. But they can't search every private property within 25 miles and get permission to do so. Too labor intensive. I suppose, like you said in the case of child, someone who refuses a search in the child's own neighborhood, might draw LE's attention. May be a way for LE to narrow down suspects when a child goes missing from their own neighborhood.

Add to that, if they don't have permission to search and evidence is found, defense can use that against the case.
It gets so complicated! At least it does in my small mind.

Wait, I just remembered something. Officer Tilley did say that LE conducted searches (of the town homes iirc) on the north side of Legacy. Those searches must have been voluntary on the part of the residents.
 
I think the subpoenaed interviews and the police searches has to be making the guilty parties squirm.
 
Wait, I just remembered something. Officer Tilley did say that LE conducted searches (of the town homes iirc) on the north side of Legacy. Those searches must have been voluntary on the part of the residents.

probably, but remember they had a search warrant for his car for a month before we found out about it. My understanding is they can keep warrant secret for a period of time as long as they can prove it is still important to the case to keep them secret.
 
Do you remember with Heather Elvis, didn't the households give consent? Or did they need warrants? I can't remember. I know with Leanne Bearden, no foul play suspected, people gave consent. Does it make a difference if foul play is suspected versus no foul play for searching private property in regards to having a warrant?


i don't think it matters if you don't allow them to search your property then they can't without a warrant. But it you give them permission then they can, although they can't use some type of ruse to get your permission like say they are looking for one thing but really they are looking for another. I think realistically if foul play is suspected it is easier to get a warrant the judge would be more inclined to give a warrant, but in theory it shouldn't matter.

I'm not a lawyer or anything so take this with a grain of salt.
 
Also, the thought crossed my mind, LE didn't want the GJ advertised. One of the reasons to bring evidence and people before a gj, is to protect the witnesses and the alleged suspect.
If LE senses there is a lot of fear in the air holding people back from testifying, advertising this step in the process seems illogical. No one should know or has to know who is to appear before the gj.
Depending on the situation, a person's safety may be at risk for going forth as a witness.

Someone posted earlier that the grand jury can hand down verdicts. That is false. There isn't a Judge involved in grand jury procedure.

That was me. I tried to re-explain what I meant in the post below. I think I said "sentence," but I really meant that if a person is indicted, they can be arrested if they are not already. I was trying to make the point that IF he was placed in jail, it could put more pressure on him to rat out others (because in my opinion there are others involved in this case.) Sorry for the confusion.

This is what I mean: (maybe I wrote it in a weird way, so I found the explanation on this website -- they probably explain it better than I do!)

After a grand jury indictment, the individual who is charged in the case usually has a chance to enter a plea. If he chooses to plead not guilty, a trial is set, during which prosecuting attorneys work to prove his guilt while defense attorneys work to prove his innocence. In the event that the party pleads guilty to the charges levied against him, he may receive a sentencing hearing instead. In the time leading up to the trial, the person may have to stay in jail or he may be released on bail. This depends on the jurisdiction in which the person is indicted, the unique details of the case, and whether or not he is likely to flee before the trial.

Following an indictment, the accused party is formally charged with the crime. If he has yet to be arrested, he may be arrested and then charged. In most jurisdictions, the accused party attends a pretrial hearing and has the opportunity to enter a plea. In the event that he pleads guilty, he may be sentenced then or at a later date, but there is typically no need for a trial. If he pleads not guilty, however, he is usually given a trial.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-happens-after-a-grand-jury-indictment.htm
 
Someone posted earlier that the grand jury can hand down verdicts. That is false. There isn't a Judge involved in grand jury procedure.

agree they had down indictments, but they do reach a verdict whether or not to indict which might be the cause for confusion.
 
I believe there will be an update on the news tonight. stay tuned for the link
 
probably, but remember they had a search warrant for his car for a month before we found out about it. My understanding is they can keep warrant secret for a period of time as long as they can prove it is still important to the case to keep them secret.

Yes, and I read the following earlier. Somebody posted a link explaining a search warrant, after 31 days, goes public (my words, meaning unless case evidence is sealed, the warrant becomes available as public record). Still, someone has to make an effort to request any documents, pay for them, and share the information. Usually, this is a reporter if the case is hot and they're keeping up with it.

In Caylee's case, there was a person/poster who went to the courthouse often and requested every document and posted them to WS. Can you imagine? If he, or someone, hadn't made the effort, the docs would remain sitting in a file.
 
Yes, and I read the following earlier. Somebody posted a link explaining a search warrant, after 31 days, goes public (my words, meaning unless case evidence is sealed, the warrant becomes available as public record). Still, someone has to make an effort to request any documents, pay for them, and share the information. Usually, this is a reporter if the case is hot and they're keeping up with it.

In Caylee's case, there was a person/poster who went to the courthouse often and requested every document and posted them to WS. Can you imagine? If he, or someone, hadn't made the effort, the docs would remain sitting in a file.

I think if LE wants to they can apply to keep it secret longer and it goes to the AG of the state to decide if it is warranted or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
1,074
Total visitors
1,234

Forum statistics

Threads
589,937
Messages
17,927,904
Members
228,006
Latest member
Suesleuth
Back
Top