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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

I would have been surprised if "anything had popped up" on Tuesday. The Feds had seized his electronic media, but that doesn't mean the investigators have already examined everything. When the computer was taken into the mobile forensics lab, at best (IMO) is that a mirror image of the hard drive was made, but it may take weeks to extract all the potential incriminating evidence from that hard drive (if there is any incriminating evidence on it) - as well as any external hard drives, flash drives, compact discs, etc. that may have been seized.

Taylor can allegedly try to incriminate Fogle and others all he wants, but unless the evidence is there, he's just blowing smoke. If there is evidence that Fogle is involved, that's on Fogle.

It does not take that long. I have seen this in many cases.. If you look when they go in and search they also arrest the suspect.
This is not the case here. I believe that this could all be related to Taylors case.
I only hope that if it comes out that he is not the target they are as public with the information.
I don't believe he bailed anyone out unless I see the court records. I think there is someone in his family who does not like him and is trying to make him look bad.

 

[Hatfield]

This article said a woman reported things Jared said to her to while working with him to the FBI.... And then she wore a wire speaking to Jared for the FBI....http://m.mysuncoast.com/mobile/ente...cle_52154f14-25bf-11e5-a0bd-cfba4964646d.html

JMO
Maybe the wire tapping of conversations was very recent.

I wonder if the person remembered the inappropriate conversations when the news of Taylor broke and maybe she just reccently contacted FBI.

Maybe then the wiretapping occurred and whatever was said was enough to get search warrants.

It doesnt sound good for him. It will be interesting to see what if any evidence was uncovered with the search warrants.

I am guessing the wire tapping was recent and culminated in getting the search warrants. I could be wrong of course too and maybe the wire tapping goes back some time.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Well, I can speak a little about general process and timeframes, at least in our **Central Texas area, with **federal child *advertiser censored* cases. (I can't speak for other areas, or STATE charges, other than to say we have done hundreds of forensic exams for outside LE agencies, and I know they wait for our backlog to get their results).

We have one NEW child *advertiser censored* case in our office right now...it was initiated and case was opened 35 days ago, from a referral from a different LE agency. There was enough probable cause for my coworker to go get a search warrant, and the search was conducted about 33 days ago. Then the items, when we do the search warrants, are brought back to our office that same day/night and put in the Evidence Vault. The next day is when 2 of us have to go through and inventory (in detail, model/serial numbers, etc. onto our official "In Evidence" forms; more detailed than what is done on scene) what was taken. Then decisions have to be made as to what office(s) we will utilize for the actual electronic forensic exams (we have several options...we just have to contact our agents that do that and find out who can do these more quickly, due to backlogs, etc.). Then the transporting to the labs, if required. It may be another day. We used to have one of the top forensic agents here in our actual "home" office, but he has transferred back to Washington, DC. That agent did literally hundreds of child *advertiser censored* forensic exams per year, just from our counties we cover. How sad is that? Anyways, we now have to use agents in other offices nearby.

Just this one case I'm telling you about...there are 6 media items being examined. We are at day 33 since the search warrant was conducted, and they're still being processed. The suspect in the case has yet to be indicted here, so no arrest warrant has been issued yet. This suspect calls several times a week, wanting to know when he can get his cell phone back. Sorry, buddy.

Our office probably averages 10 child *advertiser censored* criminal cases per year. The above example is "typical" of what we see for the timeframe. Are there exceptions? I'm sure there have been, but I wanted to give you a feel for our average. Because the agent in the other office doing the exams called me today to get our case number, I know he's working on the exams...but since our grand jury meets once a month and it will be next Tuesday, it won't be ready, with results turned over to the AUSA and presented next Tuesday. That means here in our district, the suspect won't get indicted until probably the August grand jury on August 11th.

Of course I should say there could be exceptions - "rush" on this Jared case? Who knows. State charges vs fed charges may make a difference? Etc, etc.

Point being - 1) just because he hasn't been arrested yet doesn't mean anything definitive, as I'm 99.999% sure forensic exams aren't completed (as many of you previously picked up on) and 2) it could take a little while. ****The only times I can remember when our "almost #1 super agent" was asked to rush exams and make them priorities, were in cases of homicide.

I don't know what to think on Jared, will wait to see what comes out. Ugh.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Just a general comment about the crime of child *advertiser censored*.

I sit on a Community Relations Board that meets quarterly to review the LE concerns specifically related to the re-entry of prison supervised releasees back into the community through halfway houses, etc. At our June meeting, the AUSA stated to the rest of the Board that their office is handling more child *advertiser censored* cases than ever. Big upswing. Just a sad reality.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Thanks for the info Deputydawg.....you're wonderful for sharing all that!

(How demoralizing that there are so many child *advertiser censored* cases....)

 

[Magdalyn]

It does not take that long. I have seen this in many cases.. If you look when they go in and search they also arrest the suspect.
This is not the case here. I believe that this could all be related to Taylors case.
I only hope that if it comes out that he is not the target they are as public with the information.
I don't believe he bailed anyone out unless I see the court records. I think there is someone in his family who does not like him and is trying to make him look bad.

Respectfully BBM:

It really can take that long. See DEPUTYDAWGS post #163. See this article:

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/...cle_1a4eccf0-22bf-11e2-b075-001a4bcf6878.html

He was raided by the FBI in February. Not arrested until October.

Carlon's home on the 200 block of Lewis Avenue was raided by FBI on Feb. 2. Agents took two hard disk drives, six thumb drives, a Dell desktop computer and 11 floppy disks allegedly containing depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, according to federal court records.

The FBI would not confirm or deny charges until this week.

Since February, Carlon has continued to go to work and works in the customer service field.

Here's another. Man unknowingly exchanged child *advertiser censored* with a detective from November 2012 to February 2013.

Was raided by FBI on March 7, 2013. Not arrested until April 12th, over a month later...and over 4 months after he exchanged child *advertiser censored* with an undercover cop.

https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-r...for-possession-of-child-*advertiser censored*

The investigation led to the execution of a federal search warrant at Wilson’s residence on March 7, 2013. The complaint states that pursuant to that warrant, law enforcement officers conducted a preliminary examination of a computer and found numerous images and videos of suspected child *advertiser censored*. The complaint also states that a subsequent forensic review of that computer and an external hard drive from Wilson’s residence determined that they contained approximately 887 images and 135 videos of suspected child *advertiser censored*.

Just because they had a mobile evidence unit in his driveway, does not mean they were able to even come close to analyzing every square inch of electronic device, or recover anything that might have been attempted to be overwritten/deleted. They can spend months analyzing computers. I suspect the mobile unit was there to make mirror images of all his hard drives, etc, before transferring them to be analyzed.

That they brought an electronic sniffing canine into the home leads me to believe they have reason to believe he may have hidden electronics in his home that he wouldn't volunteer.

He may be guilty of nothing. But by no means does the lack of arrest the same day (or quickly after) indicate probable innocence, as shown by the examples above.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Thanks for the info Deputydawg.....you're wonderful for sharing all that!

(How demoralizing that there are so many child *advertiser censored* cases....)

You're very welcome. It may be very general to many, but I hope it shows a little about the behind the scenes goings on, LOL.

If I was confusing about the 10 cases we average in our office per year, vs hundreds of exams we used to handle annually...I meant our office is the primary investigating agency for the average of 10. However, our office coordinated hundreds of electronic forensic exams through our superstar agent AND 2 local LE partners. Our federal agency has a nationwide program that supports local LE agencies by: sending local LE officers to our training and then providing them with all the exam equipment needed to conduct exams...in return, those officers have committed to a three year (minimum) agreement to assist us and other agencies in electronic exams. Our office had one deputy sheriff doing it for us, and we have one city officer in a different county also conducting exams.

Re timing, yes, some can get done sooner than others...it just depends on resources Again, I've never seen a request for a "rush" on a child *advertiser censored* case, but that's not to say other places don't do it. All I can say is what we have done, and I know our agents have rushed in the cases of homicide cases from outside agencies, where they need us to do the exams.

Maybe because of the high profile of this search and case, someone from the PTB will want this one done quickly, but if you really think about it, is that fair to other child *advertiser censored* victims? (Please take that in the manner meant, I may not be stating it well, LOL. Unfortunately, IF Jared is guilty of possessing - I hope not manufacturing - CP, he's just one of way too many. Ick.)

One other tidbit to give you an idea of how disturbing CP is - notice I said we "had" a deputy sheriff that was one of our exam partners. He came to our boss last winter and literally cried and broke down, and requested he be let out of his 3 year commitment because he was having nightmares and getting sick due to the overwhelming CP cases he was having to process. Not one of us could blame him. It takes a hard mental toll on the examiners, some who have small children at home. So, that is just another real example of us being down one examiner, which adds to just our office's backlog of exams. Takes more time, of course. And FYI, cell phones take longer than computers because there are even fewer trained in cell phone forensic exams.

 

[Morag]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-friends-with-accused-child-pornographer.html

The offer of images came during a flurry of text messages between the friend, Taylor and Taylor’s wife that discussed bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse and other sexual matters, the court document claims. The friend—identified in court papers as Jane Doe—told police that Taylor asked if he and another woman could come to her property, where she boards horses, and engage in sexual activity with one of the animals.

This couple is disgusting- whole house full of hidden cameras in the bathrooms and kids' rooms- he has two kids and she has three. I continue to hope that Jared is innocent, but he has awful taste in friends and employees. UGH

 

[Luvrosco]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/1...onversations-with-suspended-subway-spokesman/
Interesting, a woman wore a wire to incriminate Jarod.

 

[iluvmua]

http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/loca...ents-about/article_1a97e28c-2681-11e5-a358-6b

 

[iluvmua]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-jared-fogle-as-a-family-man-before-fbi-raid

 

[HastingsChi]

The criminal complaint against Russell Taylor states:

On April 23, 2015, a state judge in Marion County, Indiana, issued a warrant to search the Indianapolis residence of Russell Taylor and his wife.

33. On April 29, 2015, the affiant, along with assisting officers served the search warrant at Russell Taylor's residence in Indianapolis, Indiana. Russell Taylor was present during the search. The purpose of the search was to look for evidence of bestiality, including image or videos.

Considering that the ownership of zoophilic *advertiser censored* is LEGAL in the state of Indiana; how was the initial search of Russell Taylor's home even legal?

I wouldn't be surprised if all the evidence gets tossed in the Taylor case because the basis for the search was not legal.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-friends-with-accused-child-pornographer.html

The offer of images came during a flurry of text messages between the friend, Taylor and Taylor’s wife that discussed bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse and other sexual matters, the court document claims. The friend—identified in court papers as Jane Doe—told police that Taylor asked if he and another woman could come to her property, where she boards horses, and engage in sexual activity with one of the animals.

This couple is disgusting- whole house full of hidden cameras in the bathrooms and kids' rooms- he has two kids and she has three. I continue to hope that Jared is innocent, but he has awful taste in friends and employees. UGH

ITA.....I read that and almost lost my lunch.

 

[Magdalyn]

The criminal complaint against Russell Taylor states:



Considering that the ownership of zoophilic *advertiser censored* is LEGAL in the state of Indiana; how was the initial search of Russell Taylor's home even legal?

I wouldn't be surprised if all the evidence gets tossed in the Taylor case because the basis for the search was not legal.

The search warrant states they were looking for evidence of bestiality (read as: images or videos of RT committing bestiality). Committing acts of bestiality is illegal in Indiana. They did not state they were looking for bestiality *advertiser censored*. They happened to come across the child *advertiser censored* in the process.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/46/3/35-46-3-14


In other words, owning pictures or video of bestiality may not be illegal, but the acts of bestiality are. They were looking for pictures and videos of RT committing the acts, based on the conversation RT and his wife had with a witness.

ETA: In reading through the affidavit, it states that during the search, they came across images of children's genitals and pubic areas. They immediately stopped the search and obtained an additional warrant.

Sounds like they did it by the book to me.

 

[HastingsChi]

The search warrant states they were looking for evidence of bestiality (read as: images or videos of RT committing bestiality). Committing acts of bestiality is illegal in Indiana. They did not state they were looking for bestiality *advertiser censored*. They happened to come across the child *advertiser censored* in the process.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/46/3/35-46-3-14


In other words, owning pictures or video of bestiality may not be illegal, but the acts of bestiality are. They were looking for pictures and videos of RT committing the acts, based on the conversation RT and his wife had with a witness.

ETA: In reading through the affidavit, it states that during the search, they came across images of children's genitals and pubic areas. They immediately stopped the search and obtained an additional warrant.

Sounds like they did it by the book to me.

Do they were hoping to walk in on them engaged in sexual acts with an animal?

Do they even own an animal?

Yes, I think the guy is a piece of crap but the Jane Doe in the criminal complaint is equally shady.

While I'm glad that the piece of human garbage is behind bars, I don't see how the information provided met the standard to obtain a warrant (noting that there is no mention of the defendant owning an animal and that type of *advertiser censored* is legal in Indiana).

 

[Magdalyn]

Do they were hoping to walk in on them engaged in sexual acts with an animal?

Do they even own an animal?

Yes, I think the guy is a piece of crap but the Jane Doe in the criminal complaint is equally shady.

While I'm glad that the piece of human garbage is behind bars, I don't see how the information provided met the standard to obtain a warrant (noting that there is no mention of the defendant owning an animal and that type of *advertiser censored* is legal in Indiana).

If you read the affidavit, it goes through Jane Doe's statement, supported by texts with RT extracted from her cell phone. He requested to come over to her place with another woman, to get it on with a horse. He said yes when she asked "Any pictures of you and her?" and that he had a picture of "her and a dog".

Police didn't expect to catch him in the act. They were looking for video or pictures of them in the act of bestiality. That would be evidence they committed a felony in the state of Indiana.

Also, we don't see what the judge saw 'to meet the standard' to provide the initial warrant. Respectfully, this is only the affidavit for a warrant for RT's arrest on child *advertiser censored*. Not an outline on all the officer showed the judge to obtain his original search warrant.

At this point I'm going to have to give the judge the benefit of the doubt that the standard was met to grant the warrant.

ETA: One doesn't have to own an animal to engage in bestiality...one could borrow a friend's horse....offer to pet sit for a neighbor or friend....ugh....you get my drift.

 

[iluvmua]

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".

 

[Magdalyn]

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".

Coincidentally, the ages of the 2 of the 4 children violated by RT were between 9-11 and 11-13....middle school age.

 

[HastingsChi]

If you read the affidavit, it goes through Jane Doe's statement, supported by texts with RT extracted from her cell phone. He requested to come over to her place with another woman, to get it on with a horse. He said yes when she asked "Any pictures of you and her?" and that he had a picture of "her and a dog".

Police didn't expect to catch him in the act. They were looking for video or pictures of them in the act of bestiality. That would be evidence they committed a felony in the state of Indiana.

Also, we don't see what the judge saw 'to meet the standard' to provide the initial warrant. Respectfully, this is only the affidavit for a warrant for RT's arrest on child *advertiser censored*. Not an outline on all the officer showed the judge to obtain his original search warrant.

At this point I'm going to have to give the judge the benefit of the doubt that the standard was met to grant the warrant.

ETA: One doesn't have to own an animal to engage in bestiality...one could borrow a friend's horse....offer to pet sit for a neighbor or friend....ugh....you get my drift.

Again, I am glad this piece of human garbage is incarcerated but I still maintain that his lawyer has a strong argument to get much of the evidence excluded.

Also, you must agree that Jane Doe is shady to say the least and should be investigated for bestiality herself considering the details police uncovered, not from her in the interview but from the data recovered from her mobile.

 

[Magdalyn]

Again, I am glad this piece of human garbage is incarcerated but I still maintain that his lawyer has a strong argument to get much of the evidence excluded.

Also, you must agree that Jane Doe is shady to say the least and should be investigated for bestiality herself considering the details police uncovered, not from her in the interview but from the data recovered from her mobile.

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?

Sometimes judges make mistakes when issuing warrants—they may not have had sufficient probable cause to do so. Or, the information relied upon by the police may turn out to be wrong, through no fault of the police. In most situations, the search will still be valid. In U.S. v. Leon (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if the police conduct a search in good-faith reliance on a warrant, the search is valid and the evidence is admissible, even if the warrant was in fact invalid through no fault of the police.

For example, assume that a judge decides that an affidavit submitted by a police officer establishes probable cause to issue a warrant. Even if a reviewing court later disagrees and decides that the warrant shouldn’t have been issued in the first place, the officer’s search in good-faith reliance on the warrant will be considered valid, and whatever the search turns up will be admissible in evidence. If, however, the warrant is issued on the basis of statements in the affidavit that the police knew to be untrue or made recklessly without proper regard for their truth, the evidence from a search based on the warrant may later be excluded. In this situation, the evidence would be excluded based on the police officer’s actions, not an error by 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.

Search Warrants

Courts have a "strong preference" that searches and seizures be conducted under the authority of judicial warrants. (U.S. v. Ventresca) If an officer obtains a warrant and searches within the limited scope of that warrant, the good faith doctrine will usually apply, even if there may be latent deficiencies in the statement of probable cause (unless the affiant-officer deliberately misled the magistrate as to the facts).

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.

The case revisits the "common sense" rules on probable cause for warrants to search homes when it comes to criminal activity like child *advertiser censored*.

For a search warrant to be valid, there needs to be a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the defendant's residence. In this case, Chase argues specifically that the warrant failed to establish a nexus between the items to be seized -- child *advertiser censored* -- and the location to be searched, Chase's residence.

But the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument because of common sense regarding where child *advertiser censored* is typically found.

Citing United States v. Hyer, the court explained "[t]he observation that images of child *advertiser censored* are likely to be hoarded by persons interested in those materials in the privacy of their homes is supported by common sense and the cases." This "common sense approach" to establishing a nexus to trigger probable cause is used outside of the context of child *advertiser censored*, too.

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.

If a person authorized to consent to a search does so, the results of the search will be admissible. A person can only consent to a search of their own property, so authorization will be a question, if someone other than the defendant consents.

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