Hey, there! Log in / Register
Should the cops take shortcuts to solve those murders?
By adamg on Tue, 12/20/2005 - 9:28am
The Herald states that the police didn't really have to wait for a search warrant for that Ford Escort impounded in the quadruple-murder case:
... In addition to consent, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would have forgiven any urgency by investigators to go through the vehicle if they believed there was a firearm either in plain view or concealed inside, or if there was reason to believe the car was involved in the commission of a crime. ...
John, however, suggests the Herald not give faulty legal advice - a judge could later rule that the search didn't meet Constitutional muster and throw out all the evidence:
... Getting prior judicial approval for a search by obtaining a search warrant gives a much higher probability that any evidence found will be held up at trial.
So why, in an important homicide case, does the Herald promote the notion that the police should take the quick route and risk losing critical evidence? Seems odd.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Herald's advice flawed.
While it's nice of the Herald to advise the police on their investigations, I agree with John Daley that the advice was flawed. It's strange, because the reporters took pains to quote police spokesman Officer McCarthy on the need for a warrant (i.e.: not required, but preferred), a quote that demonstrates the police not only knew exactly what they were doing, but also knew how to explain it to the reporter, who still seems not to know a thing about it.
How about the Herald gets out of the damn way and lets the cops investigate the crime?
The Herald is just trying to
The Herald is just trying to sell papers, as they always do. The idea that the BPD should have circumvented the need for a warrant is silly, and strikes me as an attempt at scandal-mongering--always a Herald strong suit.
I do agree that it's strange that it took so long to get a warrant--while it was the weekend when the car was found, won't judges often rule on important issues during the weekend? But that seems to reflect bureaucracy or laziness.
At the same time, while I'm bashing the Herald, they've seemed to have more reporting from the streets on this than the Globe. Probably reflects the Globe's more suburban readership. But as an urban Globe reader who wants both local and national news, it's frustrating.
the herald is very
the herald is very frustrating. this town MUST have two major dailies. the globe tends to do a poor (and lazy) job of reporting "city" news, and is on some strange crusade against the police department. the herald does a much better job reporting urban stories than the globe, but the herald tends to fall back on extreme sensationalism when things are slow. often times this leads to sloppy journalism and questionable sources. the thought of not getting a warrant for one of the worst crimes in the ciy's history is incredibly foolish. why risk the possiblity of a reversal years down the line if it was totally avoidable. BOSTON HERALD - PLEASE GROW UP!!! we need two papers, and i cant stand the snobbiness of the globe.
Consent search
One more thing... On the consent search advised by the Herald: The person who would have standing to challenge contraband evidence recovered as a result of the search wouldn't be the owner of the car, but, if contraband evidence were recovered, would be the perpetrator. Massachusetts has automatic standing.
So the implication that a search based on consent from the car's owner would have been enough, is also way off base.
Uninformed sources make for inaccurate reporting.
But I too hope the Herald gets its act together. It it critical for Boston to have two competitive newspapers.