PDA

View Full Version : Police arrest man for child pornography after tipoff from burglars



Rockntractor
10-06-2011, 11:28 PM
By Kim Hutcherson, CNN
updated 6:21 PM EST, Thu October 6, 2011
(CNN) -- A central California man has been arrested for possession of child pornography, thanks to a tip from burglars who robbed the man's property, authorities said.

Last month, a juvenile and a 19-year-old illegally accessed the property of Kraig Stockard, 54, of Delhi, California, according to a statement from Deputy Tom MacKenzie of the Merced County Sheriff's Department. They broke into Stockard's barn and stole approximately 50 CDs they believed were blank.

Stockard filed a police report on the incident on September 12, according to MacKenzie.

But the young people who stole the CDs were in for a surprise. When they began putting the discs into their computer, they discovered that some of them contained pornographic images of children, the statement said.

Despite having obtained the CDs under decidedly shady circumstances, the pair decided to report Stockard to the police.

Read More>http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/06/us/california-robbery-porn-bust/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

noonwitch
10-07-2011, 08:46 AM
I hope this is a wake-up call for the young burglars and they turn their lives around after this.

Lots of girls could be saved from this because they came forward.l

fettpett
10-07-2011, 08:49 AM
sadly their evidence probably wont be allowed in court as evidence due to it being obtained illegally

Rockntractor
10-07-2011, 09:47 AM
I hope this is a wake-up call for the young burglars and they turn their lives around after this.

Lots of girls could be saved from this because they came forward.l

Kids can start out bad as you well know, underneath their unsavory exterior they knew right from wrong and right won.:)

noonwitch
10-07-2011, 09:57 AM
sadly their evidence probably wont be allowed in court as evidence due to it being obtained illegally

Not true. The burglars' evidence was enough for a judge to sign search warrant. When the police executed the warrant legally, they found more evidence.


Even if it all gets thrown out of court, the victims can still be protected from further exploitation.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Not true. The burglars' evidence was enough for a judge to sign search warrant. When the police executed the warrant legally, they found more evidence.


Even if it all gets thrown out of court, the victims can still be protected from further exploitation.

while true, what I meant was that the original evidence wouldn't be able to be used in his trial. Hell a good lawyer could theoretically get the whole case thrown out based on that fact. Not saying it will or that the guy shouldn't get what he deserves for having child porn as I believe he should. (personally feel a cold damp cell is too good for people like that).

Novaheart
10-07-2011, 10:28 AM
while true, what I meant was that the original evidence wouldn't be able to be used in his trial. Hell a good lawyer could theoretically get the whole case thrown out based on that fact. Not saying it will or that the guy shouldn't get what he deserves for having child porn as I believe he should. (personally feel a cold damp cell is too good for people like that).

My degree from the university of Law and Order says that if it wasn't the police who stole the videos, then the Fourth Amendment rights of the homeowner weren't violated in a way which excludes the evidence.

If Johnny burglarizes my house and steals a Rolex and some cash, when the cops find out the Rolex is stolen and the cash is counterfeit, I'm pretty sure that I'm busted as well.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 10:47 AM
My degree from the university of Law and Order says that if it wasn't the police who stole the videos, then the Fourth Amendment rights of the homeowner weren't violated in a way which excludes the evidence.

If Johnny burglarizes my house and steals a Rolex and some cash, when the cops find out the Rolex is stolen and the cash is counterfeit, I'm pretty sure that I'm busted as well.

I'm saying it's possible....each State has different rules regarding evidence, it's CA vs Fictionalize NYC

Rockntractor
10-07-2011, 10:55 AM
My degree from the university of Law and Order says that if it wasn't the police who stole the videos, then the Fourth Amendment rights of the homeowner weren't violated in a way which excludes the evidence.

If Johnny burglarizes my house and steals a Rolex and some cash, when the cops find out the Rolex is stolen and the cash is counterfeit, I'm pretty sure that I'm busted as well.

That's pretty clear cut, good example!

Odysseus
10-07-2011, 01:14 PM
My degree from the university of Law and Order says that if it wasn't the police who stole the videos, then the Fourth Amendment rights of the homeowner weren't violated in a way which excludes the evidence.

If Johnny burglarizes my house and steals a Rolex and some cash, when the cops find out the Rolex is stolen and the cash is counterfeit, I'm pretty sure that I'm busted as well.

A lot of it depends on the judge and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. In the case of stolen property, such as the Rolex, the recovery of the property is what alerts the police to the crime, when they bust the burglars and match the serial numbers against a registry of missing or stolen goods. There is no search, in that the stolen article was in possession of the police as a result of investigating another crime, a burglary. In this case,the burglars came forward to the police with the evidence which they had obtained through an illegal entry. Imagine if a cop, suspecting that the perp was a pedophile, were to "suggest" to a burglar already in custody that he would be grateful to know the contents of that person's computer. I'm not saying that busting the pedophile wasn't a good thing. It was, and he deserves his own circle in hell. I also like the fact that the burglars had a conscience and this tripped it, but this is an area where where the law tends to come down on the side of the defendant, and we shouldn't be surprised if a judge disallows the evidence.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 01:57 PM
A lot of it depends on the judge and the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. In the case of stolen property, such as the Rolex, the recovery of the property is what alerts the police to the crime, when they bust the burglars and match the serial numbers against a registry of missing or stolen goods. There is no search, in that the stolen article was in possession of the police as a result of investigating another crime, a burglary. In this case,the burglars came forward to the police with the evidence which they had obtained through an illegal entry. Imagine if a cop, suspecting that the perp was a pedophile, were to "suggest" to a burglar already in custody that he would be grateful to know the contents of that person's computer. I'm not saying that busting the pedophile wasn't a good thing. It was, and he deserves his own circle in hell. I also like the fact that the burglars had a conscience and this tripped it, but this is an area where where the law tends to come down on the side of the defendant, and we shouldn't be surprised if a judge disallows the evidence.

exactly

NJCardFan
10-07-2011, 03:03 PM
sadly their evidence probably wont be allowed in court as evidence due to it being obtained illegally

Actually, it's completely admissible. It wasn't obtained by police illegally.

fettpett
10-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Actually, it's completely admissible. It wasn't obtained by police illegally.

I could be wrong...I have no problem with the cops going after the guy and giving the kids that stole it clemency, just don't know if it could be...

NJCardFan
10-07-2011, 07:56 PM
I could be wrong...I have no problem with the cops going after the guy and giving the kids that stole it clemency, just don't know if it could be...

The 4th amendment is a tricky thing. As was said, it all depends on how a judge sees it.

Sonnabend
10-08-2011, 01:35 AM
Actually, it's completely admissible. It wasn't obtained by police illegally.WRONG.

Whether the police obtained the cd's illegally or not is not the issue at all. The "evidence", whatever it was, was obtained illegally, hence is inadmissable.

The judge that authorised that warrant is also in hot water, or should be

A search warrant obtained on the strength of illegally obtained material? The judge should and will throw it out.

The corollary would be a search warrant based on evidence of an illegal police wiretap.

Either way, the cd's are , as the saying goes, "fruit of a poisoned tree".

In this case, had the cd's been discovered by, say, a shop assistant asked to fix the guys computer and the cd was in the computer, yes it would be admissable.

How does anyone know the burglars didn't own the cd's themselves and then blamed him for them?

However, the evidence for a warrant was obtained as the result of a break enter and steal, as well the material being proven to be outside the chain of evidence required for any trial. The defendant could very well state that the burglars are lying and they planted or got the cd's from another source."How did you get the cd's" "We stole them after we broke into his house"

"Case dismissed"

fettpett
10-08-2011, 06:57 AM
WRONG.

Whether the police obtained the cd's illegally or not is not the issue at all. The "evidence", whatever it was, was obtained illegally, hence is inadmissable.

The judge that authorised that warrant is also in hot water, or should be

A search warrant obtained on the strength of illegally obtained material? The judge should and will throw it out.

The corollary would be a search warrant based on evidence of an illegal police wiretap.

Either way, the cd's are , as the saying goes, "fruit of a poisoned tree".

In this case, had the cd's been discovered by, say, a shop assistant asked to fix the guys computer and the cd was in the computer, yes it would be admissable.

How does anyone know the burglars didn't own the cd's themselves and then blamed him for them?

However, the evidence for a warrant was obtained as the result of a break enter and steal, as well the material being proven to be outside the chain of evidence required for any trial. The defendant could very well state that the burglars are lying and they planted or got the cd's from another source."How did you get the cd's" "We stole them after we broke into his house"

"Case dismissed"

it's entirely depends on the law of CA

AmPat
10-08-2011, 10:06 AM
{Law And Order}
If they fail to find anything on the computers (unlikely), they'll have a hard time convicting him. The only evidence in this unlikely scenario has been proffered by criminals. The prosecution would have to produce admissible evidence and tie it through an unbroken chain of custody to the perp. Linda?:confused:

(Law and Order episode off}

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 10:38 AM
The judge that authorised that warrant is also in hot water, or should be

A search warrant obtained on the strength of illegally obtained material? The judge should and will throw it out.



I don't see a huge difference between a burglar telling police he got the illegal images from inside your barn and a burglar who tells police he was robbing your cookie jar when he stumbled over your dead wife on the kitchen floor. Either is ample cause for a warrant as long as there is no reason to disbelieve the burglar. - Professor Kingsfield Novaheart (but you can call me King)

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 10:39 AM
{Law And Order}
If they fail to find anything on the computers (unlikely), they'll have a hard time convicting him. The only evidence in this unlikely scenario has been proffered by criminals. The prosecution would have to produce admissible evidence and tie it through an unbroken chain of custody to the perp. Linda?:confused:

(Law and Order episode off}

Don't we routinely use criminals to procure evidence? (talk about a loaded question)

Rockntractor
10-08-2011, 10:39 AM
They asked him if the cd's were his and he said yes they are, they then asked if he new they contained child pornography and he said yes he did, they then produced a search warrant ,searched his property, and found more child pornography. Fox had it on again last night with more information.

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 10:41 AM
{Law And Order}
If they fail to find anything on the computers (unlikely), they'll have a hard time convicting him. The only evidence in this unlikely scenario has been proffered by criminals. The prosecution would have to produce admissible evidence and tie it through an unbroken chain of custody to the perp. Linda?:confused:

(Law and Order episode off}

Only if Judith Lightman is the judge.

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 10:42 AM
They asked him if the cd's were his and he said yes they are, they then asked if he new they contained child pornography and he said yes he did, they then produced a search warrant ,searched his property, and found more child pornography. Fox had it on again last night with more information.

Well just take the fizz out of this discussion why don't ye?

Rockntractor
10-08-2011, 10:48 AM
Well just take the fizz out of this discussion why don't ye?

Yeah, I know, after listening to the details it was pretty cut and dried.

djones520
10-08-2011, 11:11 AM
Yeah, I know, after listening to the details it was pretty cut and dried.

The guy coulda learned something from the DUmmies. When the police ask you a question like that, keep your farkin mouth shut until you have a lawyer.

Novaheart
10-08-2011, 11:32 AM
The guy coulda learned something from the DUmmies. When the police ask you a question like that, keep your farkin mouth shut until you have a lawyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Odysseus
10-08-2011, 11:50 AM
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders, and the pundits, who speculate about it on internet discussion forums. These are their stories. :D

fettpett
10-08-2011, 12:57 PM
Well just take the fizz out of this discussion why don't ye?

IKR?




In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders, and the pundits, who speculate about it on internet discussion forums. These are their stories. :D
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl: :smileyworship:

CueSi
10-09-2011, 12:14 AM
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders, and the pundits, who speculate about it on internet discussion forums. These are their stories. :D

you forgot something. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8lDYrvTILc&feature=related

Now, it's done.

~QC

DumbAss Tanker
10-09-2011, 10:08 AM
It's actually good to go under a Federal Fourth Amendment analysis, however State rules do add additional restrictions and they are all different. It'll come down to California evidence rules.