IN - Subway's Jared Fogle - plea deal in federal child *advertiser censored* case, 2015

[iluvmua]

I wonder if he mentioned to her in the recorded phone convos that he had that stuff on his computer and that is why they raieded his house?

 

[iluvmua]

And the people defending him on Facebook is mind boggling.

Saying that the ex journalist is lying and that since he has not been arrested yet they must have found nothing etc.

 

[iluvmua]

http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/11/jared-fogle-subway-child-*advertiser censored*-investigation/

 

[SCHMAE]

And the people defending him on Facebook is mind boggling.

Saying that the ex journalist is lying and that since he has not been arrested yet they must have found nothing etc.

People defending him who know him personally or just regular spectators who are giving their opinion?

 

[jjenny]

I can't wait to read what the affidavit says about what they found at Jared's home.

I believe the ex journalist who said that Jared told her off camera that "middle school girls are hot".

Creepy but not a crime unless one acts on it.

 

[Magdalyn]

http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/11/jared-fogle-subway-child-*advertiser censored*-investigation/

From the TMZ article:

Fogle's legal team tells us there's a very good reason we didn't see the feds marching the ex-Subway spokesman out of his Indiana home this week. They say they're confident the FBI raid turned up nothing that incriminates Fogle.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/11/jared...rtiser censored*-investigation/#ixzz3favXJ3aa




Hopefully Jared's lawyer and Jared's 'people' will read here and learn that child *advertiser censored* arrests often happen days, weeks, and sometimes even months after the raid. Even if Jared is never arrested, his lawyer should know this for future clients. :waiting:

Jared's buddy, Russell Taylor, wasn't arrested on the day of his FBI raid either. (Raided April 29, arrested May 4.) And they found hidden cameras in his children's bathrooms! They observed child *advertiser censored* while looking for evidence of bestiality, and stopped the search to get a second warrant to collect the child *advertiser censored* they observed...all on the 29th. Yet did not march him out that day in handcuffs.

Seriously, how did this fallacy come about that FBI child *advertiser censored* raids always = simultaneous same day arrest? Law & Order episodes?

 

[iluvmua]

People defending him who know him personally or just regular spectators who are giving their opinion?

regular people

 

[iluvmua]

Creepy but not a crime unless one acts on it.

There were other things she said that he said that she did not want to tell the media. She did tell the FBI though.

 

[Luvrosco]

The forensic LE expert that NG had on said they had to have found something to connect Jarod with Taylor. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to secure a warrant because LE needs probable cause. On the flip side,NG and her guests have been wrong before.

 

[iluvmua]

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/...rch/article_1aa1470c-c52e-5872-98a2-eda943842

(article about a dog named Bear who helped in the search of Jared's home).

 

[iluvmua]

The forensic LE expert that NG had on said they had to have found something to connect Jarod with Taylor. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to secure a warrant because LE needs probable cause. On the flip side,NG and her guests have been wrong before.

I hope both their butts get nailed to a wall.

And I hope they don't give Jared a free pass because he is a "celebrity".

 

[human]

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/news/...rch/article_1aa1470c-c52e-5872-98a2-eda943842

(article about a dog named Bear who helped in the search of Jared's home).

The link says a 404 error

 

[jjenny]

The forensic LE expert that NG had on said they had to have found something to connect Jarod with Taylor. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to secure a warrant because LE needs probable cause. On the flip side,NG and her guests have been wrong before.

I think they are wrong here. They seem to have gotten the search warrant not because of any connection with Taylor, but because of a woman who gave them information.

"A Florida woman reportedly provided investigators with vital information that led to the raid at the home of suspended Subway pitchman Jared Fogle."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/1...onversations-with-suspended-subway-spokesman/

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There were other things she said that he said that she did not want to tell the media. She did tell the FBI though.

JF was around Taylor for many years and its even been said that Jared was the one that got him out of jail the first time. So I would think they had to know each other very well and I cant believe Taylor kept his filthy mouth shut around Jared either. I think Jared knew what Taylor was doing way before he was arrested. I think he got him out and it was hush money. But when someone is looking at a prison term no amount of money or loyalty is going to matter to them if they know they can make a deal by telling on others. Like I posted the other day: 'When two or more knows a secret its not a secret anymore.' Jared was probably sure Taylor would never rat him out or anyone else that knows things about him.

Birds of a feather flock together and all that.

The FBI loves for the suspect to sweat bullets. They take their own sweet time going through the evidence and ongoing investigation. I have seen them take months and even years before they finally arrest the suspect. They make sure they have all of their ducks in a row before the arrest.

I would think it had to be more to it than just the lady telling the FBI what Jared said. I don't think the Judge would issue a warrant just based on the words of one woman. I have a feeling JFs conversation with her may have been similar to the ones Taylor had. That may have started the investigation of JF but I think they had more than that when they searched his home.

Imo, no matter how long it takes the FBI to amass their case against Jared he will be arrested in the future and it may not be as distant as he hopes it will be. Right now, he knows what they are going to find. He knows if he is guilty or not. I think he is seeing his future flash before his eyes.

Since Taylor's wife seem to know and like some of the same things Taylor did I wonder if Jared is guilty just what all did his wife know about all of it?

May be like Camille Cosby and turned a blind eye.

IMO

 

[iluvmua]

It would not shock me if they passed stuff around to each other by e-mail, mail etc.

Hell, I'm sure they probably even have convos about it .

jmo

 

[HastingsChi]

I think they are wrong here. They seem to have gotten the search warrant not because of any connection with Taylor, but because of a woman who gave them information.

"A Florida woman reportedly provided investigators with vital information that led to the raid at the home of suspended Subway pitchman Jared Fogle."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/1...onversations-with-suspended-subway-spokesman/

If this woman who heard him make a comment about middle school girls (potentially serious, potentially jokingly, potentially lustfully, potentially sarcastic) is all it takes to obtain a search warrant for his home (and after obtaining the warrant, tipping off the media to cover the search) then hundreds of thousands of Americans should look forward to their reputations ruined because of random comments out of context.

I REALLY hope there was more than this comment to merit the search warrant, if not we've really become a fascist nation.

 

[HastingsChi]

Jane Doe's side of the convo does give me the heebee-jeebeez, sure. But I'm focused on Russell and Jared.

What exactly is his lawyer's 'strong argument' in your opinion? Do you see evidence the police presented anything false or outright lied to the judge?





http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/searches-and-improperly-issued-warrants.html

Considering what was discussed in the texts, and what was found, there is no evidence the police made reckless statements they knew to be untrue in order to get the warrant.



http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/06/the-good-faith-doctrine.aspx
Further, they found the evidence on materials they had permission to examine via a warrant, in areas they were permitted to access via the warrant, and applied for a second warrant once child *advertiser censored* appeared in the materials.

The only standard needed to obtain the warrant is to show the judge probable cause.





http://blogs.findlaw.com/eighth_cir...-child-*advertiser censored*-search-case.html


The officer had a statement from a witness along with corroborating texts to show RT was actively looking for a sexual encounter with her horse, owns and shares kiddie *advertiser censored* if you just ask, has pictures of "her and a dog" presumably the same her as "her and me". In good faith, the officer requested a warrant for evidence of bestiality. The judge clearly found it to be 'common sense' to 'reasonably infer' there may be evidence found in his home that RT has committed bestiality.

Did he consent to his home being searched? He was there, but I don't know if he formally consented. If he consented...all admissible.



http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/c...ase/evidence-criminal-cases-searches-seizures

I'd be interested if you have a comparable (to this particular case) piece of case law that would outline RT's lawyer's 'strong argument' you believe he'd make that would get most evidence excluded. (Not being snarky, seriously interested! :seeya

Thanks for your thoughtful, thorough reply.

Again, let me be clear that I couldn't be happier that this piece of human garbage is incarcerated.

1. The criminal complaint states: "Offered to send her images or videos of young girls through text messages"
However the text message supporting this reads:
Taylor: "How young are you ok with?"
Jane Doe: "Legal age"
Taylor: "I wanted to ask lol Keep in mind we do travel to Thailand on occasion "
- Taylor never sent Doe an illegal image.
- No documentation that he's ever been to Thailand
- Use of lol and in reply suggests a joking context

2. You incorrectly stated that Taylor sent Doe a pornographic photo of beastiality to which Doe replied "Any of you and her?" Per the criminal complaint that reply was in response to a photo of "young orgy" Taylor sent Doe.
- Therefore without anything to establish Taylor owned an animal the basis for the warrant to investigate bestiality is not there.

3. The websites which Taylor sent Doe links to were beastiality websites which are not illegal.

The search warrant was obtained completely on hearsay. That's a HUGE problem for the State.

Trust that the issues I highlight are in no way a defense of the piece of human garbage called Russell Taylor.

 

[Magdalyn]

Thanks for your thoughtful, thorough reply.

Again, let me be clear that I couldn't be happier that this piece of human garbage is incarcerated.

1. The criminal complaint states: "Offered to send her images or videos of young girls through text messages"
However the text message supporting this reads:
Taylor: "How young are you ok with?"
Jane Doe: "Legal age"
Taylor: "I wanted to ask lol Keep in mind we do travel to Thailand on occasion "
- Taylor never sent Doe an illegal image.
- No documentation that he's ever been to Thailand
- Use of lol and in reply suggests a joking context


2. You incorrectly stated that Taylor sent Doe a pornographic photo of beastiality to which Doe replied "Any of you and her?" Per the criminal complaint that reply was in response to a photo of "young orgy" Taylor sent Doe.
- Therefore without anything to establish Taylor owned an animal the basis for the warrant to investigate bestiality is not there.

3. The websites which Taylor sent Doe links to were beastiality websites which are not illegal.

The search warrant was obtained completely on hearsay. That's a HUGE problem for the State.

Thanks for your response!

1. After Jane Doe asked for "more" he runs through his personal *advertiser censored* collection options. His offerings do, in fact, include, "young girls".

RT: You get them?

JD: Yeah! Can I have more? I love them! So Hot.

RT: Yes What. Type? Her with dogs, orgy, s and m, young girls, etc.



Therefore, the criminal compliant is correct. RT offered, as an option of *advertiser censored* images/videos he could send, 'young girls'.

Whether or not he went to Thailand is immaterial to legality of the warrant.

An illegal image being sent is not a requirement for a 'valid' search warrant.

Not to nitpick, but a smiley face generally doesn't imply joking, a winking face does. Smiley face general implies happiness. (About visiting children in Thailand apparently.)

2. I stated:

The officer had a statement from a witness along with corroborating texts to show RT was actively looking for a sexual encounter with her horse, owns and shares kiddie *advertiser censored* if you just ask, has pictures of "her and a dog" presumably the same her as "her and me". In good faith, the officer requested a warrant for evidence of bestiality.

I didn't state any order in which these things happened or were said. The police used a combination of statements from Jane Doe, and texts, some of which supported her witness statement. Not all texts sent and received can be retrieved (see Casey Anthony trail). They may still have her phone and are still working on text retrieval. The fact that not everything she stated is matched up to a corresponding text doesn't make Jane Does statement worthless toward a warrant. She is a witness. Her statements are one piece of the puzzle. Texts are another piece. Texts didn't exist before the advent of cellphones. Witness statements can suffice for a warrant. That they could retrieve texts that support some of her statement strengthen the reliability of her statement.

My point on the 'you and her' and 'her and dogs' is that 'her' in context of either *advertiser censored* theme, is the her is likely his wife. Not a random person they have legal bestiality images of. RT offered the 'HER with dogs' as an option of images he could send her. It is reasonable to believe the 'Her' is a person he knows, since he also said 'yes' to having images of "himself and 'her'" that he could send.

-To your second point, I'm confused as to what case law states it need be established a person owns a pet or has access to an animal in their home for a search warrant for bestiality to be valid. I don't expect they were going to romp with Jane Doe's horse in their living room. One need not have a child living in their home, or even visiting their own home for a search warrant for evidence of child molestation/ child *advertiser censored* to be valid. The basis for a warrant would never require that the victim of the crime be under the care of the perpetrator (child, dog, horse), or found in the home for a search warrant be served and/or present at the time the warrant is served. The home is the simply the most likely place sexual predator would hide their trophy cache (pictures/video/saved and hidden evidence from the crime)

3. No one has argued that the websites were illegal. The warrant for the initial search was based on a combination of a witness statement and direct evidence (text messages), and anything else included on the affidavit for the search warrant....which we have never seen. The texts don't have to contain an illegal *advertiser censored* image for them to be pertinent to the overall presentation to the judge. If the judge is convinced there is probable cause to conduct a search, that is his subjective decision.

The search warrant was obtained completely on hearsay. That's a HUGE problem for the State.

Police officers obtain search warrants by convincing a neutral and detached magistrate that they have "probable cause" to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Usually, the police provide the judge or magistrate with information in the form of written statements under oath, called "affidavits," which report either their own observations, or those of private citizens or police informants. If the magistrate believes that the affidavit establishes probable cause to conduct a search, he or she will issue a warrant.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

The information in an affidavit need not be in a form that would be admissible at trial. (For example, a judge or magistrate may consider hearsay evidence that seems reliable, even if a judge might exclude it at trial.) However, the circumstances set forth in an affidavit, viewed as a whole, should demonstrate the reliability of the information (Illinois v. Gates, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1983). In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judge or magistrate will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of these sources:
• a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal goings-on
• an informant who implicates himself or herself as well as the suspect
• an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police
• a victim of a crime related to the search
• a witness to the crime related to the search, or
• another police officer.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html


Additionally, everything we have discussed is based on the affidavit for the arrest warrant. This is not the affidavit LE submitted to the judge for a search warrant for evidence of bestiality. So our debate is ultimately moot, because we have no idea the entirety of what was presented in THAT affidavit for the initial search.

Thanks for answering my question. I personally don't see any convincing legal basis the warrant was obtained on a less than perfectly legal basis, and thus evidence would be thrown out. I know you do, and I respect that, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on!

 

[HastingsChi]

Thanks for your response!

1. After Jane Doe asked for "more" he runs through his personal *advertiser censored* collection options. His offerings do, in fact, include, "young girls".

RT: You get them?

JD: Yeah! Can I have more? I love them! So Hot.

RT: Yes What. Type? Her with dogs, orgy, s and m, young girls, etc.



Therefore, the criminal compliant is correct. RT offered, as an option of *advertiser censored* images/videos he could send, 'young girls'.

Whether or not he went to Thailand is immaterial to legality of the warrant.

An illegal image being sent is not a requirement for a 'valid' search warrant.

Not to nitpick, but a smiley face generally doesn't imply joking, a winking face does. Smiley face general implies happiness. (About visiting children in Thailand apparently.)

2. I stated:



I didn't state any order in which these things happened or were said. The police used a combination of statements from Jane Doe, and texts, some of which supported her witness statement. Not all texts sent and received can be retrieved (see Casey Anthony trail). They may still have her phone and are still working on text retrieval. The fact that not everything she stated is matched up to a corresponding text doesn't make Jane Does statement worthless toward a warrant. She is a witness. Her statements are one piece of the puzzle. Texts are another piece. Texts didn't exist before the advent of cellphones. Witness statements can suffice for a warrant. That they could retrieve texts that support some of her statement strengthen the reliability of her statement.

My point on the 'you and her' and 'her and dogs' is that 'her' in context of either *advertiser censored* theme, is the her is likely his wife. Not a random person they have legal bestiality images of. RT offered the 'HER with dogs' as an option of images he could send her. It is reasonable to believe the 'Her' is a person he knows, since he also said 'yes' to having images of "himself and 'her'" that he could send.

-To your second point, I'm confused as to what case law states it need be established a person owns a pet or has access to an animal in their home for a search warrant for bestiality to be valid. I don't expect they were going to romp with Jane Doe's horse in their living room. One need not have a child living in their home, or even visiting their own home for a search warrant for evidence of child molestation/ child *advertiser censored* to be valid. The basis for a warrant would never require that the victim of the crime be under the care of the perpetrator (child, dog, horse), or found in the home for a search warrant be served and/or present at the time the warrant is served. The home is the simply the most likely place sexual predator would hide their trophy cache (pictures/video/saved and hidden evidence from the crime)

3. No one has argued that the websites were illegal. The warrant for the initial search was based on a combination of a witness statement and direct evidence (text messages), and anything else included on the affidavit for the search warrant....which we have never seen. The texts don't have to contain an illegal *advertiser censored* image for them to be pertinent to the overall presentation to the judge. If the judge is convinced there is probable cause to conduct a search, that is his subjective decision.






http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html



http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html


Additionally, everything we have discussed is based on the affidavit for the arrest warrant. This is not the affidavit LE submitted to the judge for a search warrant for evidence of bestiality. So our debate is ultimately moot, because we have no idea the entirety of what was presented in THAT affidavit for the initial search.

Thanks for answering my question. I personally don't see any convincing legal basis the warrant was obtained on a less than perfectly legal basis, and thus evidence would be thrown out. I know you do, and I respect that, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on!

Thank you again for your thoughtful and thorough reply.

I really appreciate this discussion which is focused specifically on the legal basis outlined in the criminal complaint and the potential violations which could potentially lead to the exclusion of important evidence.

Below is a more thorough reply which hopefully demonstrates my appreciation for the great research you shared in your replies by reciprocating it

The attorneys representing the piece of human garbage called Russell Taylor would be wise to do the following [and I hope that they do not because they could work]:

1. First challenge the search warrant by attacking the affidavit in support of the warrant [the statements of Jane Doe not supported by documentation] via a Franks Hearing.

For background, in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court held that in certain defined circumstances a defendant can attack a facially sufficient affidavit. The Franks Court recognized a "presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant", and thus created a rule of "limited scope".

The rule created by the Franks decision requires that a dual showing be made before a court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit's integrity. This showing incorporates both a subjective and an objective threshold component. In order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit's integrity, a defendant must first make "a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit." This showing "must be more than conclusory" and must be accompanied by a detailed offer of proof.

In addition to showing that the affidavit contains false information, a defendant must show that the false information is essential to the probable cause determination. That is, if a court finds that “when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required."

The Franks test not only applies to cases where false information is included in an affidavit, but also applies when affiants omit material facts "with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading." Upon making this two-part preliminary showing of false or omitted information, and the necessity of this information to a finding of probable cause, a defendant is entitled to a hearing. At this hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

If an affiant's material perjury or recklessness is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the warrant "must be voided" and evidence or testimony gathered pursuant to it must be excluded. A warrant that violates Franks is not subject to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon.

2. An Officers Training and Experience is NOT probable cause
In search warrant affidavits the phrase “training and experience” is used as a substitute for actual evidence. "I know from my training and experience that drug dealers often keep electronic records of their transactions." Leaving aside whether that's BS, it's certainly not probable cause. If I say I often take my wife out to dinner (which I do), that doesn't mean I do it four times a week.

The Taylor criminal complaint states:

18. Based upon my training and investigation experience, I know that some persons who have a sexual interest in children have been known to travel to Thailand in order to engage in child sex tourism.

There is an over-reliance on "officer training and experience" to obtain a search warrants.

In State v. Evans, 119 Or App 44 (1993), the court found the officer's claimed knowledge of common practices to be insufficient. The following quote is worth reading in full.

"In a marijuana growing case, an affidavit must satisfy two requirements in order to support a search warrant of a residence. State v. Anspach, 298 Or 375 (1984). First, the affidavit must set forth objective observations sufficient to allow a disinterested magistrate to conclude that there is probable cause to believe that there is a relationship between the people residing on the premises and the marijuana plants. Second, 'the affidavit must contain additional facts to support probable cause to believe that marijuana or certain kinds of implements of cultivation or paraphernalia for processing or sale of marijuana are probably in the building to be searched.' 298 Or at 381, citing State v. Anspach, 68 Or App 164, 171 (1984).

This affidavit failed to meet the second requirement. There are no facts whatsoever linking the marijuana plants to anything in the residence, which was more than 35 miles away from the garden. Standing alone, the officer's intuition or professed knowledge of the common practices of people who grow, distribute and sell marijuana is not an additional fact supporting probable cause that this particular residence contained any particular evidence."

3. The overwhelming reliance on hearsay; especially when not supported by the data recovered from Jane Doe's mobile data:

Where a warrant is sought based on hearsay information, the affidavit must either:
(1) Contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or
(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay. State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 953-54 (Ind. 2006) (citing Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1) and (2)).

The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in several where:
(1) the informant has given correct information in the past,
(2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant’s statements,
(3) some basis for the informant’s knowledge is demonstrated, or
(4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Id. (citation omitted).

However, these examples are not exclusive, and “[d]epending on the facts, other considerations may come into play in establishing the reliability of the informant or the hearsay.” Id.

With regard to anonymous sources, our supreme court has stated:

Use of anonymous informants to establish probable cause often presents heightened reliability concerns. Because there is no possibility of criminal liability for filing a false police report, the informant has no incentive to be truthful. Anonymity effectively shields from scrutiny any possible ulterior motives; the situation is rife with the potential for pranks and mischief.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If this woman who heard him make a comment about middle school girls (potentially serious, potentially jokingly, potentially lustfully, potentially sarcastic) is all it takes to obtain a search warrant for his home (and after obtaining the warrant, tipping off the media to cover the search) then hundreds of thousands of Americans should look forward to their reputations ruined because of random comments out of context.

I REALLY hope there was more than this comment to merit the search warrant, if not we've really become a fascist nation.

I have to wonder if this is even true. I just am not sure it is at all. And I agree with you. I think that this so far is a case of over reaching. They should be out there saying they found nothing and that he has cooperated and that is it.

I think this is horrible and should be actionable if it turns out that he is innocent of this or at very least there is no evidence to support the claims.