let those people go
by Vincent Rooley
Published: April 24, 2008
On Saturday, April 5, law enforcement agents entered the grounds of the FLDS temple in El Dorado, Texas in search of an anonymous girl who was claiming sexual abuse at the hands of registered sex offender Dale Barlow. The fact that Dale Barlow was residing in Arizona under the watchful care of his parole officer at the time of the call didn’t seem to bother anyone.
Now, Dale Barlow is a scumbag. He impregnated a 16-year-old and “no-contest” was his only explanation. But that does not authorize the public to enlist the aid of law enforcement in harassing the unpopular on the whim of an allegation.
Any judge, lawyer or law enforcement officer with a telephone and an internet connection could have found out that it was impossible for Dale Barlow to be sexually abusing someone in El Dorado, Texas. At which point all involved parties should have been able to deduce that “probable cause,” the necessary requirement for the issuance of a search warrant, could no longer be proved.
However, the search was conducted and two inflammatory items of evidence were found: a bed with ruffled linens, complete with a strand of long hair, and pregnant teenage girls.
Since Child Protective Services is authorized to remove children who appear to be suffering from abuse from the homes of their parents, when they stumbled upon pregnant teenagers and kids with chicken pocks, they immediately took all 416 children into custody.
At this point, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that an unmade bed with a strand of hair proves that adults are sexually abusing underage girls. Furthermore, we’ll assume that the evidence of pregnant teenagers corroborates our prior conclusion. Even with those assumptions, law enforcement cannot detain a single adult and CPS should not be able to assume custody of a single child.
Why? Because of Mapp V Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case that was settled, ohhh… 38 years ago. In it the Court introduced “The Exclusionary Rule.” In short, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. Any evidence obtained during an illegal search, i.e. the FLDS Texas raid, cannot be used in court.
Therefore, the discovery of a bed and pregnant girls must be thrown out during any future legal proceedings. Without proof of sexual abuse (not to mention the fact that the presence of chicken pox in no way proves parental neglect), the State of Texas has no claim against the FLDS church or its members.
The compound has been owned by the FLDS church since 2004 and the only reason - I repeat - the only reason it was raided was because of anonymous phone call that has been proven to be phony! However, because the women dress like folks from The Village (by the way, why the bouffant hair style?) and because, in general, people who live in compounds are considered kooks, the media and public have no problem with throwing the laws out the window, so long as we can throw the book at the polygamist.
I’m all for prosecuting sexual abuse. I’m all for prosecuting polygamists (after all, it’s against the law), but the only way to legally carry out a prosecution on those two counts is with admissible evidence: a real girl who claims sex abuse, a real wife who admits to being involved in a plural marriage. I know it sounds silly, but, barring the seizure of real evidence, we probably shouldn’t tear kids away from their parents and immediately place them in the foster care system. For heaven’s sake, a trial date isn’t near being set and we’re already placing the kids with new families! Can we at least wait until we have proven in a court of law that the parents are child abusers?
Apparently not. At least, not when the people accused of wrong-doing dress funny and live in compounds.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
April 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
How was the search illegal? The phone call was not proven phony until long after the search. And everyone in that compound descends from, literally, a handful of families, so the possibility that there is more than one Dale Barlow is pretty darn high. Nobody cares whether they’re polygamists. There are groups of them all over the West, but only one that marries off kids as a rule.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Nobody cares whether they’re polygamists?
Oh, come on now… sure they do. Everybody does. You can’t deny the fact that catching them stealing candy at a Stop ‘N Shop would bring a little extra, “Ah ha! Got ‘em.”
Maybe the reasons for the search stand on their own regardless of whether they’re polygamists, but the mere fact that they’re doubling up on the spousal action ads extra incentive to take action.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
The point is that the search was initiated by a claim against a man who couldn’t have possibly been at the site and it would have been very easy for police to know that he wasn’t in Texas. He had a rap sheet and a parole officer in Arizona. That’s the crux. The police can’t just crash into your home on grounds of an obviously bogus accusation. And if they find shady stuff going on at your home they can only use it if they had entered your home by “acting in good faith.” However, in the Texas scenario I find it hard to prove “good faith.” Nobody likes polygamists so they didn’t bother doing a little research about the accusation. They just busted the door down, took the kids and impounded the freaks. Even if we all hate the FLDS Church it still is an illegal search.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 am
Look I think laws are great but too many times they get in the way of doing what’s right. It’s too bad this world can’t operate on common sense. If girls are being sexually abused, that should be dealt with, not ignored. Our laws shouldn’t impede us from stopping something illegal and immoral.