I think I might be able to shed some light on different questions I saw asked or discussed about the upcoming hearing on EG’s attorney’s motion:
A few weeks back, there was a discovery hearing in which the DA entered into evidence (the affidavit someone posted earlier) the evidence found on Emily’s phone and her then confession to have driven under the influence. The judge allowed it to be entered so now the defense attorney is wanting to get that confession thrown out based on accusing LE of obtaining that confession illegally. This is very standard and makes it that much harder for EG to later appeal if she’s found guilty of the endangerment.
Emily was not mirandized until her arrest several days later, after the fact she had made this confession to LE. LE doesn’t have to remind someone that they have the right to remain silent if they aren’t under arrest. People just assume if they are being questioned, Miranda rights apply to them but they do not.....it’s only if they are under arrest.
It’s been awhile since we discussed this in depth, but keep in mind the reason why it’s been so important to charge Emily with some sort of crime regarding her children....especially M. If a child is removed from a parents custody, the only way to keep that child out of the home is to charge that parent with a crime against a child. Until her rights are terminated (that is a long way off, the process can take years), she still has rights to her children. So the motivation in charging her with the endangerment is more about keeping Emily behind bars as long as possible and protecting her children from her. This is a common tactic and can usually be very effective. Everything going on in this case is about the endangerment charge for M, not Lucas. So the LL’s testimony is irrelevant here. No warrant was needed for the cell phone because Emily turned it over voluntarily. She’s also not being charged with using drugs, she’s been charged with being under the influence of them and endangering M’s life in the process. There won’t be any drug screen because of how much later it was from when the incident occurred. Yes drug screen technology has changed but there is limits on when those tests can be administered and how they can be used in a court of law. The attorney isn’t disputing the fact that Emily had used drugs or even put her child in danger, she’s just saying the information was improperly obtained.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
