CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #47

[Emma Ems]

Reposting the NISMART document again on non-family abduction characteristics and statistics. Lots of good info in it, even if you just go through and look at the tables and charts.

There are 52,800 non-family abductions in the US every year. Only 37% of them are by strangers. Since non-family abductions are most often not by a stranger, and therefore more probable, and there are so many of them, I've always wanted to talk more in Dylan's threads about non-stranger non-family abductions than about stranger abductions.



http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

This is veering OT a bit but you know that it's really confusing stranger, non-stranger, because a one time repairman to your home would be considered a non-stranger abduction, right?

A stranger is someone that neither you or your child has ever met in your life. So that does explain why the statistics are lower IMO. I wouldn't classify the cable guy that came here to install my cable as someone I really know. To me they would really be a stranger but because they came to my house once, they aren't considered as being a stranger in the instances of stranger vs non stranger abduction, right?

 

[NC Analyzer]

I seriously think we need one of our resident attorneys to discuss probable cause and the necessary requirements to obtain a search warrant. The fact that Dylan was missing is NOT sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant.

There are 3 basic elements to establish a finding of probable cause to search: 1) A crime has been committed 2) the belief that evidence of a crime exists 3) the belief that the evidence will be found in a particular location.

I am well aware that there are those who would rather dismiss the serious nature of LE obtaining a search warrant. The problem is, unless a warrant was obtained under the specific legal criteria, any evidence found during the search wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Most LE personnel are not favorable to having their evidence thrown out under a properly executed search, much less under a "bad" search.

This is not a "minor" situation. It is our 4th amendment right and it is not something anyone in LE or the Criminal Justice system in general treats lightly! I know of cases where a person was indicted for a crime and even that wasn't sufficient enough to obtain a search warrant!!

There was probable cause to search Mark Redwine's house and vehicles. LE would have been required to prove to a judge that either, a crime had been committed, or, evidence of a crime exists, and/or the evidence will be found at that particular location, (the house or the vehicles). Period.

 

[Emma Ems]

Just want to add a couple of things, then I'm out of here.

It's not my turn.

The fact that people (not you in particular) have to go back 20 YEARS, and cite the case of Polly Klaas (10/1/1993) is indicative, IMO, of the relative scarcity of stranger abductions. Oops. I see that others have already pointed out the issues with some of the other citations, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

There are still so many that are unsolved that it's hard to tell what the actual statistic rate is, IMO. If all the unsolved cases were stranger abductions what would the numbers be then? Or even non-stranger abductions, like the instance of the cable guy that came here to install a new box over 6 months ago. One could easily forget about that. We lose track of time so easily, one month can seem like last year sometimes. It's just something to consider.

 

[Ghostwheel]

R also says himself the last text he received from Dylan was at 8 in that YouTube video where he and the other friend are interviewed informally by an adult female. The video where there's all the wind noise and music. I don't have the link handy, and I hope people know which video I mean. I'm not sure what to call it since it's not a news video.

I don't remember that video, do you have a link....Just kidding. I don't actually remember the video, but it doesn't matter, I allow that what is written can be enough for anyone else to go with the last text was to someone else. It's not enough for me, but I also allow that doesn't necessarily make logical sense. The whole "electronic communication" thing bothers me, I can't say why. If Dylan stopped texting R before 8:15 (that is my own estimate based on the back and forth of the texting), then R waited an hour and fifteen minutes to add "Call me when you get here, too", why didn't Dylan respond? Especially if he DID text someone else.

Not important, just typing out loud.

 

[mixologist74]

Just want to add a couple of things, then I'm out of here.

It's not my turn.

The fact that people (not you in particular) have to go back 20 YEARS, and cite the case of Polly Klaas (10/1/1993) is indicative, IMO, of the relative scarcity of stranger abductions. Oops. I see that others have already pointed out the issues with some of the other citations, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

IMO, it doesn't matter how many years we have to go back. I gave examples of 2 stranger abductions that happened less than 10 yrs ago, AND they were boys.

 

[NC Analyzer]

Just want to add a couple of things, then I'm out of here.

<modsnip>.

The fact that people (not you in particular) have to go back 20 YEARS, and cite the case of Polly Klaas (10/1/1993) is indicative, IMO, of the relative scarcity of stranger abductions. Oops. I see that others have already pointed out the issues with some of the other citations, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Yep. I'm feeling your pain. Not only do we have to go back 20 years, but there are only 3-4 children TOTAL that fit the criteria. Rare.

 

[dlc]

Yes. Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby. Both abducted by the same stranger and when Ownby was abducted, Hornbeck and Ownby both found not long after. Ben Ownby, I believe, was 13 when he was abducted, and Shawn was 11.

Indeed, and these two poor boys are frequently used examples. But Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped over 10 years ago, in 2002; Ben Ownby in 2007, both by the same monster. I'm not disagreeing with your example, just noting that it's relatively rare, leading people to cite the same cases frequently.

God bless both of these boys.

JMO

 

[Emma Ems]

I seriously think we need one of our resident attorneys to discuss probable cause and the necessary requirements to obtain a search warrant. The fact that Dylan was missing is NOT sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant.

There are 3 basic elements to establish a finding of probable cause to search: 1) A crime has been committed 2) the belief that evidence of a crime exists 3) the belief that the evidence will be found in a particular location.

I am well aware that there are those who would rather dismiss the serious nature of LE obtaining a search warrant. The problem is, unless a warrant was obtained under the specific legal criteria, any evidence found during the search wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Most LE personnel are not favorable to having their evidence thrown out under a properly executed search, much less under a "bad" search.

This is not a "minor" situation. It is our 4th amendment right and it is not something anyone in LE or the Criminal Justice system in general treats lightly! I know of cases where a person was indicted for a crime and even that wasn't sufficient enough to obtain a search warrant!!

There was probable cause to search Mark Redwine's house and vehicles. LE would have been required to prove to a judge that either, a crime had been committed, or, evidence of a crime exists, and/or the evidence will be found at that particular location, (the house or the vehicles). Period.

Can you link that? We have already examined links that extensively show what the statutory grounds for issuance of a SW are and it seems it isn't that hard to get one. According to the Ohio Bar's website there are exceptions to 4th amendment where emergency exists one example when a child is missing, they may look where they believe that child might be, I assume that includes looking for evidence in the last known location where the child was for clues to where they might be found. That alone tells me that if LE wanted a warrant to find a missing child, the fact the child is missing and that was the child's last known location, that a judge would sign whatever warrant LE put in front of their face on that issue.

The Constitution does not prohibit all searches; it says the government is not allowed to conduct unreasonable searches. The law provides that judges generally decide whether a proposed search would be reasonable, but the law also recognizes that it might sometimes be &#8220;reasonable&#8221; for a government agent to conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant from a judge. For example, in an emergency situation where police are searching for a missing child, it would probably be reasonable for police officers to search places where the child might be found without obtaining a warrant for each place the officers need to look.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-613.aspx

 

[dlc]

IMO, it doesn't matter how many years we have to go back. I gave examples of 2 stranger abductions that happened less than 10 yrs ago, AND they were boys.

Sorry, you responded while I was typing.

I'm afraid you might be misunderstanding me. Yes, you did give 2 examples, although I think you're a little off on your dates -- according to my information, Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped in 2002.

My point is, according to one reputable study, between 1,500 and 2,000 children die yearly in the U.S. by some form of maltreatment by their caregivers -- not strangers. It is estimated (conservatively) that this number is underreported by 16-59%. If you take the 11 years since Shawn was kidnapped, you're looking at well over 20,000 caregiver-related fatalities. (N.B., Not injuries, fatalities.)

(http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/childfat_FS6.pdf)

As horrible as their case is, the fact that everyone cites it is, IMO, indicative of the infrequency.

JMO, MOO, etc.

Thank you.

 

[The Cheese]

This is veering OT a bit but you know that it's really confusing stranger, non-stranger, because a one time repairman to your home would be considered a non-stranger abduction, right?

A stranger is someone that neither you or your child has ever met in your life. So that does explain why the statistics are lower IMO. I wouldn't classify the cable guy that came here to install my cable as someone I really know. To me they would really be a stranger but because they came to my house once, they aren't considered as being a stranger in the instances of stranger vs non stranger abduction, right?

The document has a chart where they define what they mean by stranger, slight acquaintance, etc

They also have a chart where they break down statistics on non-family abductions into those perpetrated by Friend, Long-term acquaintance, Neighbor, Authority person, Caretaker or babysitter, etc

 

[Confusion]

Can you link that? We have already examined links that extensively show what the statutory grounds for issuance of a SW are and it seems it isn't that hard to get one. According to the Ohio Bar's website there are exceptions to 4th amendment where emergency exists one example when a child is missing, they may look where they believe that child might be, I assume that includes looking for evidence in the last known location where the child was for clues to where they might be found. That alone tells me that if LE wanted a warrant to find a missing child, the fact the child is missing and that was the child's last known location, that a judge would sign whatever warrant LE put in front of their face on that issue.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-613.aspx

I could be wrong again, but I think the reason a search warrant can be issued for the last place a missing child was seen is that probable cause means there is a reasonable belief that either a crime has been committed there or "evidence that a crime has been committed" can be found there. If the child is believed to be a runaway, there'd be no crime and therefore no warrant. If it's believed the child was abducted, there could be forensic evidence of the person/people involved, written communication between the child and the perp/s, photographs, etc. In many cases, it could also be that a family member is involved in the disappearance.

In my mind, they got a search warrant once they decided that he hadn't run away, rather than deciding he hadn't run away because of anything found during the search. MOO

The Fourth Amendment does not require officers seeking a warrant to show that the people or places to be searched committed any crime. Rather, they merely need to show probable cause that the sought-after evidence is there. For example, in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), the Supreme Court allowed police to search a student newspaper, where the newspaper was not implicated in any criminal activity but police suspected it had photographic evidence of the identities of demonstrators who assaulted police officers. However, some jurisdictions responded by passing laws restricting or forbidding these kinds of searches. See, e.g., CA Penal Code § 1524.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

 

[NC Analyzer]

Can you link that? We have already examined links that extensively show what the statutory grounds for issuance of a SW are and it seems it isn't that hard to get one. According to the Ohio Bar's website there are exceptions to 4th amendment where emergency exists one example when a child is missing, they may look where they believe that child might be, I assume that includes looking for evidence in the last known location where the child was for clues to where they might be found. That alone tells me that if LE wanted a warrant to find a missing child, the fact the child is missing and that was the child's last known location, that a judge would sign whatever warrant LE put in front of their face on that issue.



https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-613.aspx

We are not discussing exceptions to search warrants. There are several exceptions and they also have specific elements. The "exceptions" you are citing are not relevant to this discussion as this was not a "emergency" situation, otherwise known as hot pursuit, life in danger, etc. It also wasn't a school search, a prison, or a border search. Nor was it in conjunction with an arrest, plain view, consent, or anything else that would fall under the exception rules.
We are discussing the search warrant obtained on Mark Redwine's property and vehicles. An ordinary search warrant. The reason your example is invalid is due to the fact that the search wasn't immediate nor was it an "emergency". The warrant was served under usual circumstances, during daylight hours, (there are also rules on that).
I know what I know without a "link". As I mentioned previously, I studied law, have a degree in law and have a library at my disposal due to using it routinely in my own profession. You don't have to accept what I'm telling you. Take it or leave it. But I don't make this stuff up. It is our Constitutional right and I know my rights. I also know what holds up in a court of law. I have to or I wouldn't have much of a chance at having my own cases hold up in court.
I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative, but your example is not even on point to what we are discussing, so I'm merely attempting to educate.

 

[dlc]

In addition to Ben & Shawn, there is also Steven Stayner.

<modsnip>. I thought that was supposed to do the trick. (Really, I'm a slow typist.)



Steven Stayner was kidnapped in 1972. Forty-one years ago!!


I'm beginning to feel like I stepped into another dimension, and I'm sure it's just that I am not making myself clear in what I'm trying to say.


Statistics say that 13-14 year old boys are not frequent targets of kidnappers in the United States of America. We can argue that til the cows come home, and turn and invert the question in innumerable ways, but they show what they show.

JMO, MOO (with data supplied)

P.S. - I'm half expecting someone to post about the Lindbergh baby (1932).

<modsnip>,....

 

[NC Analyzer]

I could be wrong again, but I think the reason a search warrant can be issued for the last place a missing child was seen is that probable cause means there is a reasonable belief that either a crime has been committed there or "evidence that a crime has been committed" can be found there. If the child is believed to be a runaway, there'd be no crime and therefore no warrant. If it's believed the child was abducted, there could be forensic evidence of the person/people involved, written communication between the child and the perp/s, photographs, etc. In many cases, it could also be that a family member is involved in the disappearance.

In my mind, they got a search warrant once they decided that he hadn't run away, rather than deciding he hadn't run away because of anything found during the search. MOO


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

You are much closer to correct. A warrant wouldn't be connected to Dylan being a runaway. It would have to be connected to some evidence that a crime occurred or the belief that there was evidence of a crime that occurred and/or the belief that the evidence will be found at that location. As I stated previously, there are 3 elements.

 

[mixologist74]

Sorry, you responded while I was typing.

I'm afraid you might be misunderstanding me. Yes, you did give 2 examples, although I think you're a little off on your dates -- according to my information, Shawn Hornbeck was kidnapped in 2002.

My point is, according to one reputable study, between 1,500 and 2,000 children die yearly in the U.S. by some form of maltreatment by their caregivers -- not strangers. It is estimated (conservatively) that this number is underreported by 16-59%. If you take the 11 years since Shawn was kidnapped, you're looking at well over 20,000 caregiver-related fatalities. (N.B., Not injuries, fatalities.)

(http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/childfat_FS6.pdf)

As horrible as their case is, the fact that everyone cites it is, IMO, indicative of the infrequency.

JMO, MOO, etc.

Thank you.

It is also indicative of the fact that it does happen.

WRT Horbeck and Ownby, I think I was going by the date they were found, not abducted, and Ownby was abducted in 06.

 

[Confusion]

You are much closer to correct. A warrant wouldn't be connected to Dylan being a runaway. It would have to be connected to some evidence that a crime occurred or the belief that there was evidence of a crime that occurred and/or the belief that the evidence will be found at that location. As I stated previously, there are 3 elements.

Okay, I'll bite. How is that different from what I posted?

a search warrant can be issued for the last place a missing child was seen is that probable cause means there is a reasonable belief that either a crime has been committed there or "evidence that a crime has been committed" can be found there

 

[Emma Ems]

I could be wrong again, but I think the reason a search warrant can be issued for the last place a missing child was seen is that probable cause means there is a reasonable belief that either a crime has been committed there or "evidence that a crime has been committed" can be found there. If the child is believed to be a runaway, there'd be no crime and therefore no warrant. If it's believed the child was abducted, there could be forensic evidence of the person/people involved, written communication between the child and the perp/s, photographs, etc. In many cases, it could also be that a family member is involved in the disappearance.

In my mind, they got a search warrant once they decided that he hadn't run away, rather than deciding he hadn't run away because of anything found during the search. MOO


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant

The crime alone is enough probable cause. Dylan is missing there are two scenarios, either he was abducted or he met harm at the hand of Mark. LE is not certain that it is the crime scene but it's not unreasonable to think it isn't with the last text and possible phone pings being from that location. If it is the crime scene then it's also reasonable that they may find evidence there that can indicate what crime occurred to Dylan. I had just pulled up something very similar elsewhere.

I also think it could be viewed from another standpoint, the search could be to rule out MR's home as being the crime scene. Since Mark consented to the search, couldn't they include that on the warrant.

I firmly believe that the reason for the warrant is that on the off chance they did find something that indicated Dylan met with a bad fate in the home then they would have it. It's a fail safe. Not that they believe one way or another what has happened to Dylan just that they just want to search for evidence and allow that evidence to take them where it may and if it does take them to Mark then the warrant will come also come in handy so that evidence that could be found may not be challenged later. I don't think it's at all indicative of what for certain happened to Dylan.

 

[KateNY]

I seriously think we need one of our resident attorneys to discuss probable cause and the necessary requirements to obtain a search warrant. The fact that Dylan was missing is NOT sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant.

There are 3 basic elements to establish a finding of probable cause to search: 1) A crime has been committed 2) the belief that evidence of a crime exists 3) the belief that the evidence will be found in a particular location.

~snip

This attorney has posted in Dylan's threads--maybe send 'em a page

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8593262&postcount=321"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO - Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 Nov 2012 - #4[/ame]

11-30-2012
cfreyja23
Verified Attorney

Also, if LE were able to obtain a warrant, then they had sufficient probable cause to get the warrant signed. I'm curious to know what that probable cause was.

 

[dlc]

Can you link that? We have already examined links that extensively show what the statutory grounds for issuance of a SW are and it seems it isn't that hard to get one. According to the Ohio Bar's website there are exceptions to 4th amendment where emergency exists one example when a child is missing, they may look where they believe that child might be, I assume that includes looking for evidence in the last known location where the child was for clues to where they might be found. That alone tells me that if LE wanted a warrant to find a missing child, the fact the child is missing and that was the child's last known location, that a judge would sign whatever warrant LE put in front of their face on that issue.



https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-613.aspx

We've examined just as many, if not more, links, from respected sources, which indicate that SWs do indeed require the meeting of a specific set of circumstances. I believe that you will find that, in Colorado, recent decisions (in 2010 and 2011) have tightened 4th Amendment protections, not loosened them.

Thankfully, though we may often find it cumbersome, the 4th Amendment continues to stand as one of the fundamental elements of the American legal system.

IMO.

Thank you.

 

[NC Analyzer]

<modsnip>, yet I stuck around. I thought that was supposed to do the trick. (Really, I'm a slow typist.)



Steven Stayner was kidnapped in 1972. Forty-one years ago!!


I'm beginning to feel like I stepped into another dimension, and I'm sure it's just that I am not making myself clear in what I'm trying to say.


Statistics say that 13-14 year old boys are not frequent targets of kidnappers in the United States of America. We can argue that til the cows come home, and turn and invert the question in innumerable ways, but they show what they show.

JMO, MOO (with data supplied)

P.S. - I'm half expecting someone to post about the Lindbergh baby (1932).

<modsnip>....

<modsnip> I know exactly what you are talking about!

IT IS RARE. A MINISCULE CHANCE! Unfortunately lease:

Beam me up Scotty! :ufo:

<modsnip>