Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 31,866
- Reaction score
- 7,458
Very interesting!
Search of MR's house Aug. 14, 2013
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
New Posts
-
IA IA - David Schultz, 53, Wall Lake, 21 November 2023 #3
- Latest: NoSpoonFeeding
- Status
Very interesting!
packerdog
Well-Known Member
Good ideas about the fireplace poker leaving distinctive marks on bones. I wonder if MR had a fire in the fireplace the night Dylan arrived. He could have destroyed evidence in the fireplace. I am very glad that there is some positive movement in the case.
IMO - he does seem to like the sound of his own voice so maybe he has revealed something he shouldn't of and hence the new search . Without a shadow of a doubt LE will be watching him like a hawk and taking on board what he does and who he speaks to .
*Lash*
Justice 4 Rebecca
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 66
Ghostwheel, thank you for the link. In reading further, I came across the below paragraph under "Sealing Orders". If I am interpreting this correctly, in a sealed request there would be 2 documents. One that can be given to the person being served and another document that includes the probable cause section that the investigator is requesting to be sealed. Therefore, Mark would receive a copy, but his copy would not include the information that was requested to be sealed. 2 separate documents are produced when a search warrant is requested to be sealed. One for the person being served the warrant and one for court eyes only. I also believe Mark would have received a copy of the inventory receipt which includes all the items that were taken into evidence.
(5)JUDGE ISSUES ORDER: If the affiant’s request is granted, the judge will sign the sealing order. Although the order may be included in the warrant, it is better to incorporate it into a separate document so that it is not disclosed to the people who are served with the warrant. A sealing order is available on our website.
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/Sum_11_Special_Procedures.pdf
*Lash*
Justice 4 Rebecca
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 66
Salem, you made a very good point! What was in the probable cause section that LE did not want to share with Mark?
AnotherSetOfEyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 451
- Reaction score
- 382
This morning I woke up and my mind had put two and two together, drawing a horrible conclusion that I just can't voice yet. And there is really no reason to say anything, because it is pure speculation. But if my subconscious really did draw an accurate conclusion, I would guess that the warrant was sealed to protect MR not an informant.
Ghostwheel
Pyrrhonist
Nice catch. I had only skimmed it last night. Yes, I read it that way as well. Now I have to go look up the sealing order at the website, to see what it looks like.
ETA: Here is what one looks like for CA:
http://le.alcoda.org/files/SW_Sealing_Order.pdf
IHAVENOCLUE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 22,376
- Reaction score
- 4,940
Sorry about waking up to disturbing thoughts....
could you maybe shed a little light on why MR would be the person being protected by sealed warrant?
I am not well versed in the legal aspects of search warrants... So I am not coming up with a reason for this...
TIA...:seeya:
My family has a long standing history in LE. Homicide officers, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyer. But on the east coast and KY and VA. The most common reasons for sealing a warrant is to protect the information source in an ongoing investigation. Such as to hide electronic surveilance, an underage informant, any informant, or additional places to be searched in the future. Once an indictment has happened the accused will know what was in the sealed affadavit or sometimes within a specified amount of time. Not being grumpy here but I don't see why MR would need to be protected or how he could be protected by a sealed affadavit. If he was being threatened I would think LE would be required to inform him of such. JMO
AnotherSetOfEyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 451
- Reaction score
- 382
Excellent information. Thank you!
I still want to hear your thoughts! You add much to the conversation!:rockon:
In reading about the search warrant sealing order in Hannah Anderson's case, a search warrant may also be sealed to prevent people from destroying evidence, and/or in order not to compromise an ongoing investigation. It's not always done to protect a person - whether a suspect, witness, or informant.
SOURCE: The unsealed search warrants in Hannah Anderson's abduction case, a copy of which can be found and downloaded/saved here:
http://freepdfhosting.com/d50a728a97.pdf
The information given in this case in regard to reasons for requesting the search warrant to be sealed can be found in the testimony given by one of the Detectives on Page 4 (also knows as the Affiant in this particular case). The Affiant is the officer who petitions the judge to seal the orders.
SOURCE: The unsealed search warrants in Hannah Anderson's abduction case, a copy of which can be found and downloaded/saved here:
http://freepdfhosting.com/d50a728a97.pdf
The information given in this case in regard to reasons for requesting the search warrant to be sealed can be found in the testimony given by one of the Detectives on Page 4 (also knows as the Affiant in this particular case). The Affiant is the officer who petitions the judge to seal the orders.
If I understand it correctly, a sealed search warrant would be available to a defendant during the discovery phase in a trial, but that doesn't mean they are privy to the information before that time.
I am curious as to where people are coming from in regard to the warrant being sealed to protect MR. Can anyone shed any light on that? Ditto for the discussions about a confidential informant.
From what I have gathered in conversations with LE (not involved directly in this case), merely wanting to "re-check" previous leads, or search for more random evidence would not provide enough probable cause for a new search warrant being granted for MR's home. There must be new information that causes the investigators to believe that another search will provide evidence - especially this late in the investigation.
One thing that I think would fit with the time frame between D's remains being found, and this new search of MR's house would be forensics testing from the remains that has been finished. Usually a time period of 4-6 weeks is given for tests, and it's been roughly about 5 weeks since his remains were found.
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:
ETA: Obviously there would be /some/ documentation that would be available to the owner of the premises that will be searched, but as far as how much they are allowed to actually see, I think that would vary. For instance, they would need to show the owner that yes, they do have a warrant, and that the warrant corresponds to the address, but anything beyond that I don't think would be required to be presented to that person. At such time a person is charged with a crime - if they are eventually charged - then, everything would be discoverable.
I am curious as to where people are coming from in regard to the warrant being sealed to protect MR. Can anyone shed any light on that? Ditto for the discussions about a confidential informant.
From what I have gathered in conversations with LE (not involved directly in this case), merely wanting to "re-check" previous leads, or search for more random evidence would not provide enough probable cause for a new search warrant being granted for MR's home. There must be new information that causes the investigators to believe that another search will provide evidence - especially this late in the investigation.
One thing that I think would fit with the time frame between D's remains being found, and this new search of MR's house would be forensics testing from the remains that has been finished. Usually a time period of 4-6 weeks is given for tests, and it's been roughly about 5 weeks since his remains were found.
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:
ETA: Obviously there would be /some/ documentation that would be available to the owner of the premises that will be searched, but as far as how much they are allowed to actually see, I think that would vary. For instance, they would need to show the owner that yes, they do have a warrant, and that the warrant corresponds to the address, but anything beyond that I don't think would be required to be presented to that person. At such time a person is charged with a crime - if they are eventually charged - then, everything would be discoverable.
Salem, I read through that report on Pine River Times, and I don't see where it states within that article that the reason the judge sealed the warrant was "so that MR could not share it this time". Is that a fact, or is that opinion as to the reason behind the order?
I'm just wondering because there is a lot of speculation following this post, but I haven't seen anything reported that details the reasoning behind the judge's decision to agree with the request for the warrant to be sealed, or for that matter why detectives petitioned for that order - all I'm seeing is "no comment".
As for why a search warrant would/should be a secret at this time, I can personally think of many reasons why, but it would all be speculation.
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:
KateNY
Perpetual Lurker
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 0
You are correct. A search warrant is sealed to protect an ongoing investigation whether it is an informant, methods of investigation, new leads, any of the above. But it IS to protect the integrity of the investigation. Yes, I would agree that it probably has to do with new information.:twocents:
Precisely! For any and all reasons. Whatever they don't want to tip to the possible perp here. MOO is that they want MR to continue his obvious self confidence. But the latter is just my opinion.:moo:
Thought I'd put up information that might help people better understand what can and can't be sealed on a search warrant. The following case is from Teller County, CO. It was originally a sealed warrant.
Notice pages 8 and 9 in this document where it states that the search warrant including the affidavit, and the application for the search warrant, the probable cause testimony (exhibit A), and other specifics in regard to what they are looking for (exhibit B), is sealed indefinitely or until termination of the case.
Extrapolating from this example, the only thing necessary for them to have disclosed to MR in executing this warrant would be the fact that there is a warrant on file, and that it corresponds to the location. It is not clear from this search warrant file if they were required to leave a copy of the things taken with the owner, or just to the judge as an after search report.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/06/27/9786761/189202-Colorado_search_warrant.pdf
As always - except where referenced - all of the above is MOO! :cow:
ETA: It would appear that in the above case, the only thing that would need to be presented to the owner of the property (in this case a vehicle) would have been pages 1 and 2. Attachment "B" is mentioned, but stated as attached. I would assume that LE would let the subject know that there is an order sealing anything mentioned on those first two pages, or perhaps serve them a copy of the judge's order along with the first two pages.
Notice pages 8 and 9 in this document where it states that the search warrant including the affidavit, and the application for the search warrant, the probable cause testimony (exhibit A), and other specifics in regard to what they are looking for (exhibit B), is sealed indefinitely or until termination of the case.
Extrapolating from this example, the only thing necessary for them to have disclosed to MR in executing this warrant would be the fact that there is a warrant on file, and that it corresponds to the location. It is not clear from this search warrant file if they were required to leave a copy of the things taken with the owner, or just to the judge as an after search report.
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/06/27/9786761/189202-Colorado_search_warrant.pdf
As always - except where referenced - all of the above is MOO! :cow:
ETA: It would appear that in the above case, the only thing that would need to be presented to the owner of the property (in this case a vehicle) would have been pages 1 and 2. Attachment "B" is mentioned, but stated as attached. I would assume that LE would let the subject know that there is an order sealing anything mentioned on those first two pages, or perhaps serve them a copy of the judge's order along with the first two pages.
- Status