PoI? Breaking Concrete without Search Warrant?
@DizzyB sbm If BM told LE about Denver trip which LE determined was a lie, imo LE's head would turn closer to BM as a PoI, but that lie alone would not be sufficient for LE to start breaking concrete.
But imo, that lie, plus other info re BM & property (hypothetical to us still but actual info to LE, e.g., witness stmt about BM's presence at a certain time at dirt-delivery/compacting site before concrete-pour), plus homeowner's consent for LE to bring GrPenRadar/equivalent may have been sufficient for LE to conduct non-invasive tests on concrete slab, w'out warrant.
But before invasive/destructive actions-- digging, sawing, cutting concrete foundation there -- doubtful (to some/most of our verified legal profesionals here) that LE proceeded without a having obtained a judge's signature on search warrant.
Azz-uming the GrPenRadar test results revealed a disturbance/disruption in or under the concrete, that fact, plus the other above info could form basis for judge to sign search warrant and for LE to proceed w invasive/destructive digging, cutting concrete, etc.
Welcoming comment, clarification, correction, esp from our legal professionals. just my 2 cts.
Not a lawyer, but I’ll take a stab at it. Each case is different, but you are pretty spot on in your deductions. To plug this case into the
hypothetical you describe, it may go something like this: (For the purpose of this narrative, we will call the fictitious husband Bob Murphy, or BM for short, his wife is Sheila Murphy)
LE So you said you were in Denver all day on Sunday.
BM Yes
LE. Well we went to the area where you were supposed to be setting up your job site and no one saw you there.
BM. Really?
LE. Do you want to tell us where you really were? It doesn’t look good that you are lying about where you were on the day your wife disappeared.
BM Well, I was with a woman.. I didn’t want my daughters to find out.
LE Okay, give us her name and we’ll go have a talk with her; see if she can corroborate your story.
BM. I’d rather not do that.
LE. Why not? If we can not corroborate your story, we won’t be able to clear you as a suspect.
BM. Well, she is married. I don’t want to drag her into this.
In the meantime, everyone in the Salida area knows SM is missing. The searches have not turned up any anything but a couple of personal items and SM’s bike.
News and social media carry the story that BM was in Denver on Mother’s Day.
LE continues to ask for tips.
A local homeowner realizes that the man hired to do dirt prep for his new foundation is the husband of the missing woman. He knows BM was in his yard on 5/10. He knows that husband was supposed to be in Denver that day. He decides it’s probably nothing, but decides to call the tip line.
LE asks if they can come to his yard and examine the foundation. They bring GPR and find some suspicious spots. The also bring cadaver dogs and have gotten hits on the property.
They step back and advise the homeowner that they are going to seek a search warrant to dig beneath the concrete and a couple of other spots in the yard. They seal off the property until they obtain a warrant.
Some judges want more probable cause, almost proof, others are a little more relaxed in their decision to sign a search warrant. Investigators often try to time their warrant requests for when a more forgiving judge is on call.
The original lie BM told wouldn’t be enough to make him the only PIO, but it definitely would move him high on the list. When you add in the dig site, the dog hits, the GPR results, and have not found the missing person, it goes a lot further to giving you probable cause for the search warrant.
