CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #47

[Bayou Mistress]

Respectfully disagree. If I give LE my permission to come into my home and search it, that is MY option. If they find something in my home and I tell them, sure you can take that. They DO NOT need a warrant to take it, I gave them permission to take it.

The "chain of custody" has NOTHING to do with needing a warrant. It has EVERYTHING to do with, officer A tagged & bagged, put it in his vehicle, turned it over to officer B at that PD who is in charge of the evidence room, officer A signs it over, officer B signs that he accepted it. Later Detective A wants to look at the evidence, he request it from officer B and signs for it.

That ^^^^is the chain of custody, knowing who touched the evidence, when and where the evidence is located.

I think it was OJ Simpson trial when one of the detectives left evidence in the trunk of his vehicle and lied about it, said it was turned over earlier than reality.

I'm pretty sure Mixologist ceded that point last night. More interesting to me is the question of whether or not consent can be revoked in the middle of a search as a reason for LE to seek a warrant in the first place. In other words, LE may have a warrant to prevent revocation of consent...??

 

[dlc]

Don't make me go find you examples! LE has said the ruled a subject out while they pursued the same! LOL

Innocent people get lawyers. Mark needs one, but by his own statements, he just wants his son home.

DP did display family dysfunction. The show wasn't even about Dylan. Sad.

I know you've been away, but did you ever find these examples and links? I'm still curious.

Thank you.

 

[Salem]

Just to be clear about the search and consent thing:

Say I am innocent of something LE thinks I might know something about. Because I know I didn't do anything, I consent to a search. But LE comes in and totally starts to mess up my place and that makes me, shall we say, unhappy. At that point, can I revoke my consent and kick them out?

Yes, you can withdraw your consent at any time and then LE will need a warrant.

Smart LE always gets a warrant because it is easy to argue that LE exceeded consent during a consent search. So if LE really thinks there is evidence they need, they will get the warrant. To get the warrant, they need probable cause and sometimes that's not as easy as it sounds.

Salem

 

[nursebeeme]

I'm pretty sure Mixologist ceded that point last night. More interesting to me is the question of whether or not consent can be revoked in the middle of a search as a reason for LE to seek a warrant in the first place. In other words, LE may have a warrant to prevent revocation of consent...??

I don't think we know WHY they had a warrant but they had one. In past cases that I have followed a warrant is used in a large search like this for legal purposes.

 

[dlc]

Ummmm no it was not from an unofficial facebook page.

I do need to ask a mod for some clarification though.

When you have a chance, could you please update us on this with a link?

Thank you.

 

[Salem]

Hey everybody - I just removed several posts discussing things that are OFF THE TABLE. We are on zero tolerance here - but I'm not going to TO everybody at this point, because it looked like you got yourselves back on track. Thank you for that, it is appreciated.

You may discuss Dr. Phil - BUT NOT THE RUMORED, EDITED PORTIONS.
You may not call MR an alcoholic or mentally disturbed, because we don't have facts supporting that (only rumors and opinions).
You may not accuse MR. You may speculate and/or theorize.
You may not attack our verified posters. If you disagree with them, that's fine. Move past their posts. If you have an honest question or need for clarification, you may ask for it RESPECTFULLY. If the verified poster chooses NOT TO RESPOND that's OKAY. Just like you, if they don't want to respond to a post, they don't have to.
And the discussion of what happened way back when before Dylan moved to Colorado Springs is OFF THE TABLE.

All other rules can be found right here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159"]The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

As always, if you have a question, please pm a mod and don't derail the thread.

Thanks!

Salem

 

[azgrandma]

I'm pretty sure Mixologist ceded that point last night. More interesting to me is the question of whether or not consent can be revoked in the middle of a search as a reason for LE to seek a warrant in the first place. In other words, LE may have a warrant to prevent revocation of consent...??

My apologies if it was addressed last night, I was sleeping and am catching up.
It's my understanding that the answer to your question is yes and no. In some cases you can revoke permission, however not in all cases. If you grant permission, they walk in and see drugs laying on the table, you can't say - wait a minute, nevermind you can't search. In other words, you can't unring the bell so to speak because they saw the drugs. But, you can allow them in and say you can't go in that room, or wait a minute, I decided I need an attorney you guys have to leave. Again, that is my understanding and not fact. Reference to you is not specific.

 

[azgrandma]

So the search warrant was served on November 29th and we have reports of Mark being at home before that date. Why did LE allow Mark to stay in the home before executing the search warrant?

If law enforcement had evidence that Mark was responsible for Dylan's disappearance from the get go, why did they allow him to stay at the possible crime scene for day after day before they got a search warrant?

MOO.

I have to go find the website of a missing boy from years ago. The father and babysitter/stepmom said that the boy disappeared. The sister, once in safe custody said that the boy got in trouble for not clearing the dishes and he was put in a closet or something.
Anyways, a search warrant was not served for over 4 months!!!! By that time the father had replaced the tile in the kitchen, demo'd the van he used, married the babysitter. It was a mess, still no little boy, still no charges. I'll go search for it, it was SHOCKING!

 

[mmmagique]

Jumping off your post.:twocents:
The father of the Skelton boys who disappeared on a court ordered Thanksgiving visit is in jail for "custodial interference" IIRC. No trace of the three darling little boys has ever been found. The father gave conflicting stories.
:moo:

He gave their coats to a (neighbor or family member?) the next day, saying they wouldn't need them anymore. I wish they could keep him until he talked, and then keep him some more. :jail:

 

[mixologist74]

I have wondered about this myself. For one thing, doing something behind the house would mean he didn't have to get in a vehicle and drive somewhere.

And in thinking about LE confirming that Dylan and his father arrived at home at about 8 p.m., this confirmation makes me think that either someone saw them arrive at the house or there is a webcam/security cam that includes them in it near the house.

Heading into the woods at night for someone who knows the woods, would be a way to avoid discovery by a neighbor or a camera.

Was there a moon that Sunday night?

Doing something behind the home would also be pretty brazen; if Dylan had died, surely cadaver dogs would have hit there too, and not just at the lake.

 

[mixologist74]

Respectfully disagree. If I give LE my permission to come into my home and search it, that is MY option. If they find something in my home and I tell them, sure you can take that. They DO NOT need a warrant to take it, I gave them permission to take it.

The "chain of custody" has NOTHING to do with needing a warrant. It has EVERYTHING to do with, officer A tagged & bagged, put it in his vehicle, turned it over to officer B at that PD who is in charge of the evidence room, officer A signs it over, officer B signs that he accepted it. Later Detective A wants to look at the evidence, he request it from officer B and signs for it.

That ^^^^is the chain of custody, knowing who touched the evidence, when and where the evidence is located.

I think it was OJ Simpson trial when one of the detectives left evidence in the trunk of his vehicle and lied about it, said it was turned over earlier than reality.

ETA - FAQ webpage for easy reference to searches.
• Consent. If the police show up at your door and ask you if they can come inside to search for drugs and you consent to the search, then the police do not need a warrant.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/illegal-search-and-seizure-faqs.html

You're right, in part. But if LE wants to take anything, a search warrant will cover them in the event that a case is presented in court. Defense will try to, and can be successful at getting things thrown out because they were obtained without a search warrant.

 

[rebeccaeee]

Doing something behind the home would also be pretty brazen; if Dylan had died, surely cadaver dogs would have hit there too, and not just at the lake.

We don't know that they didn't. Cadaver dogs hit at Lisa Irwin's home and her mother has not been charged with anything.

 

[mixologist74]

We don't know that they didn't. Cadaver dogs hit at Lisa Irwin's home and her mother has not been charged with anything.

I have my own opinions about the Irwin case, so I'm going to leave that one stand.

If cadaver dogs had hit at the home, why were there no reports? There were reports of the ones at the lake.

 

[rebeccaeee]

I have my own opinions about the Irwin case, so I'm going to leave that one stand.

If cadaver dogs had hit at the home, why were there no reports? There were reports of the ones at the lake.

Because LE has refused to comment on what was found during the search or what was taken from the home during the search. Mark has commented on items he says were taken but LE lips are sealed regarding the search in general.

http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...96/0/SEARCH/Investigators-end-search-of-house

 

[Bayou Mistress]

What I'm getting out of the discussion last night and today is that the reason for the search warrant is unknown and could have been LE protecting the search in case of a revocation of consent. All accounts point to Mark's cooperation and consent up to that time and beyond. Also, information about the execution of the warrant is non-existent other that the self reported items MR listed as taken. The mere existence of a warrant doesn't appear to confirm wrong-doing on the part of MR.

 

[NC Analyzer]

What I'm getting out of the discussion last night and today is that the reason for the search warrant is unknown and could have been LE protecting the search in case of a revocation of consent. All accounts point to Mark's cooperation and consent up to that time and beyond. Also, information about the execution of the warrant is non-existent other that the self reported items MR listed as taken. The mere existence of a warrant doesn't appear to confirm wrong-doing on the part of MR.

LE doesn't obtain a search warrant to "protect the search" in case someone changes their mind. A judge doesn't grant a search warrant to "protect the search" in case someone changes their mind.
A search warrant is obtained when LE presents probable cause to the judge as to the reason they believe a crime has been committed and they have to prove their evidence will show that a location in question needs a closer look to obtain further evidence of the crime.
It is standard to obtain a search warrant in most criminal cases. It's often referred to as "going by the book". A warrant is issued based on direct evidence or hearsay evidence. Warrants alone don't indicate having enough evidence to convict a person, but they do mean LE has sufficient evidence to present to a judge to obtain a warrant. In other words, there was some kind of evidence or hearsay to convince a judge to sign off on the search warrant at Mark Redwine's house.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

LE doesn't obtain a search warrant to "protect the search" in case someone changes their mind. A judge doesn't grant a search warrant to "protect the search" in case someone changes their mind.
A search warrant is obtained when LE presents probable cause to the judge as to the reason they believe a crime has been committed and the location in question needs a closer look.
It is standard to obtain a search warrant in most criminal cases. It's often referred to as "going by the book". A warrant is issued based on direct evidence or hearsay evidence. Warrants alone don't indicate having enough evidence to convict a person, but they do mean LE has sufficient evidence to present to a judge to obtain a warrant. In other words, there was some kind of evidence or hearsay to convince a judge to sign off on the search warrant at Mark Redwine's house.

Yes, a child last seen in that location is certainly reason for search! And since there is evidence of MR's cooperation and consent, I was looking for a the reason for the warrant. I'm completely satisfied that a missing child is reason enough.

 

[NC Analyzer]

Yes, a child last seen in that location is certainly reason for search! And since there is evidence of MR's cooperation and consent, I was looking for a the reason for the warrant. I'm completely satisfied that a missing child is reason enough.

It would be more than a child last seen at that location. This is all very 4th amendment. My suggestion is googling your rights as far as search and seizure laws. MR has the same rights and a judge is charged with protecting them.

 

[azgrandma]

What I'm getting out of the discussion last night and today is that the reason for the search warrant is unknown and could have been LE protecting the search in case of a revocation of consent. All accounts point to Mark's cooperation and consent up to that time and beyond. Also, information about the execution of the warrant is non-existent other that the self reported items MR listed as taken. The mere existence of a warrant doesn't appear to confirm wrong-doing on the part of MR.

LOL I'm sorry to laugh at this Bayou, I'm not laughing at you at all. But IIRC it started out talking about MR's search and the need for a warrant, then the discussion morphed to permission to take things and whether or not a warrant would be needed in regards to ER's home being searched and items taken from there. It wasn't certain as to whether or not LE got a warrant for her house. Then it took on it's own life. :what:

 

[The Cheese]

Yes, a child last seen in that location is certainly reason for search! And since there is evidence of MR's cooperation and consent, I was looking for a the reason for the warrant. I'm completely satisfied that a missing child is reason enough.

BBM. I think you may be right. I'm thinking about Jessica Ridgeway's case. LE conducted a warranted search of her home. We all know that no one in her family had anything to do with her abduction and murder, and personally I don't think LE suspected any family members at the time of the warranted search. JMO of course.