3. The overwhelming reliance on hearsay; especially when not supported by the data recovered from Jane Doe's mobile data:
Where a warrant is sought based on hearsay information, the affidavit must either:
(1) Contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or
(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay. State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 953-54 (Ind. 2006) (citing Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1) and (2)).
The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in several where:
(1) the informant has given correct information in the past,
(2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant’s statements,
(3) some basis for the informant’s knowledge is demonstrated, or
(4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Id. (citation omitted).
However, these examples are not exclusive, and “depending on the facts, other considerations may come into play in establishing the reliability of the informant or the hearsay.” Id.
With regard to anonymous sources, our supreme court has stated:
Respectfully snipped for space:
FWIW, Jane Doe is not the anonymous informant your case law speaks of. She is not a phone tipster who called in and said, "Colonel Mustard did it, in the Conservatory, with the revolver!", hung up, and police cannot identify her, the defense can never question her. The officer interviewed her on the phone, then in person,
at her residence, then took possession of her cell phone to analyze. The state could reasonably subpoena her at trial. A defense lawyer could question her. LE knows who she is.
To review the reasons you've cited the warrant may not be valid:
Considering that the ownership of zoophilic *advertiser censored* is LEGAL in the state of Indiana; how was the initial search of Russell Taylor's home even legal?
I wouldn't be surprised if all the evidence gets tossed in the Taylor case because the basis for the search was not legal.
Answer: The warrant wasn't for zoophilic *advertiser censored*. It was for evidence of bestiality.
The basis of concern slightly shifts here, the emphasis now a 'meeting the standard', yet underscored by lack of pet ownership, and still including the legality of zoophilic *advertiser censored*:
While I'm glad that the piece of human garbage is behind bars, I don't see how the information provided met the standard to obtain a warrant (noting that there is no mention of the defendant owning an animal and that type of *advertiser censored* is legal in Indiana).
Answer: There is no legal standard that maintains an animal must be owned by a person being served a search warrant for evidence of bestiality. The 'owning zoophilic *advertiser censored* is legal' is a red herring. It was never in question. Again, the warrant wasn't looking for legal zoophilic *advertiser censored*, no one has argued its legality.
Argument completely changes then to:
The search warrant was obtained completely on hearsay. That's a HUGE problem for the State.
Your own quoted case law states:
The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in several where:
(1) the informant has given correct information in the past,
(2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant’s statements,
(3) some basis for the informant’s knowledge is demonstrated, or
(4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Id. (citation omitted).
They did do an independent police investigation that corroborates the informant's statements. They examined her phone.
Some basis for the knowledge is demonstrated. Note it does not say
all must be demonstrated. It would be intellectually dishonest to say none of the
basis of her knowledge is found on the texts. Nothing mentioned in the above case law states 'verbatim transcript via text must back up statement.'
The goal posts have moved considerably from the initial reason cited why you believe the warrant may not hold up. I'm sure the defense attorney will try them all, as you have--that's his/her job, and I'd expect no less. I remain confident the warrants will stick, as will the evidence. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
I really am ready to move on topic-wise, but I did enjoy the discourse, so thanks! :seeya: