Reply With Quote
I will help pay for their defense if they get charged.
Burglars report victim's pornography to police
Burglars who broke into a Merced property and found a stash of child pornography called police, who arrested the owner.
Kraig Stockard, 54, of Delhi, Calif., was charged with possession of child pornography after a 19-year-old and a juvenile broke into his barn and stole about 50 CDs they thought were blank, according to NBC4LA, citing a statement from Deputy Tom MacKenzie of the Merced County Sheriff's Department.
When the thieves downloaded the discs, they discovered the child porn, the statement said.
The burglars went straight to police, even though they knew they would be admitting burglary.
Police said more than 30 computer discs had child pornography on them.
He posted $25,000 bail. The two burglary suspects have not been arrested.
I will help pay for their defense if they get charged.
Kinda nullifies the concept of a warrant.
I was thinking the same thing...the whole chain of evidence issue.
If you have criminals turning over evidence they stole, I'm not sure if it would be admissible.
Then how did this guy get arrested, counselor?
I'm pretty sure Yoni meant it shouldn't be admissible.
That said, I'm hoping that the cops used this somewhat flimsy evidence as the basis for a warrant, and then inspected the premises for evidence on their own and used their own inspection as the basis for arrest.
I confessed to not being sure...
Agree.
deh googling is hard werk.
Despite having obtained the CDs under decidedly shady cir stances, the pair decided to report Stockard to the police.
A search warrant was served and three more computers and three laptops were taken from Stockard's home, along with several external hard drives. Police said there were thousands of pictures and movies on the CDs -- more than 30 of the 50 discs had child pornography on them.
Investigators said Stockard has been downloading indecent images of children since 2004. He has admitted possessing the pornography on the CDs but has refused to say whether there is pornography on the computers, they said. Stockard was booked for possession of child pornography and posted $25,000 bail.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-06/u...s-cds?_s=PM:US
Quite an interesting case of how moral hazard can often depend on the cir stances of how things play out. A normally reprehensible action led to a boon for society. Gotta love life.
I'm not sure I'd let them off though.
A burglar who reports a crime is, nonetheless, a burglar. May have victimized others who didn't possess child pornography.
I suspect the police are making that judgement. But, kudos to the thieves for at least having a moral line they wouldn't cross.
Nothing like an honest burglar helping keep the neighborhood safe.
It's pointless to prosecute him, it will most likely get jury nullified
Oh yeah, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be processed. But it's funny how we judge people based on the consequences of their actions as much as the actions themselves.
For instance, take two drunk drivers, one who hits someone and one who doesn't. The one who hits someone is considered much worse, even though they both made the same mistake.
In the same case, these robbers won't be looked at as bad as other robbers, since something good came out of their robbery (and they didn't happen to commit any other crimes, in fact, they prevented a crime worse than the one they committed).
It still undermines the concept of warrants. If feds wanted to search a premises and could not get a warrant to do so, they only need send in kids to rob it and suddenly they have their reasonable cause.
"Evidence" obtained through criminal means by kids is no more legal in court or to obtain a warrant than evidence obtained through criminal, unwarranted searches. It's even less actually.
I'm glad the guy got busted, but let's not stand up and cheer the erosion of our Cons utional rights through loopholes and mob rule.
Assume a couple of kids broke into your home and found pirated music and movies. It's illegal to own. They could turn it in and, based on precedence, get off without conviction and you would be prosecuted.
It becomes a slippery slope really quick.
I think the idea that they prevented child pros ution supporters (a rather serious crime) makes them more sympathetic than they normally would be.
So if Mark Chmura while having sex with his step Daughter catches a Burglar does he get off..............again?
The Fourth Amendment does not protect against private intrusion into the home, but intrusion by state actors and those working in conjunction with the state. I'm not sure about California, but this is actually one of those situations where Texas provides more protection than the federal Cons ution. Our version of the exclusionary rule protects against both state and private actors, regardless of if the latter are working with police.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
