MI MI - Danielle Stislicki, 28, Southfield, 2 Dec 2016 #9

[Zebra Lady]

Now, if she had manually set her app on her phone to track by GPS that's a different story...but you wouldn't do that unless you were out for a run.

Not sure what would be involved in switching it to a " run " mode . What if she sensed things were changing course and she knew it could track where she was maybe she would knowing it might help locate her ?

 

[monkeypants]

Last time I checked the TOS we weren't supposed to just throw out opinions as fact, has something changed? All I've seen in 3 or 4 pages is one person saying things confidently and everyone jumping off it as if they are case facts.

I don't get it.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[persimmon]

You'd think in the digital era, it'd be pretty easy to tie someone to something and get an arrest warrant though.

I wouldn't think that. I would think that it aids the police in their investigation but in order to indict they need to have charges or counts laid out and fully supported in order to get a grand jury to support an arrest warrant.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

But according to MSM the SG hasn't worked at ML since October, so him showing up randomly at the time and asking for help with his car would probably have her questioning why are you here IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think we know enough at this point... is her building part of a complex? Maybe he was just moved over to a nearby building and they still ran into each other in the parking lot. And if he was stalking her, he could have made up a reason like that to explain why he was around. Dunno... we know so little at this point, anything is possible.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

So, what would make the difference between getting a warrant for an arrest vs a warrant for search?

For one, you would have to request one and there is no evidence at this point that one was requested. In order to arrest someone you, have to have specific charges and enough evidence at that time to convict in court beyond a reasonable doubt. That is different than looking for evidence based on probable cause that evidence exists to be found.

Then after the arrest you only have a limited time to arraign. So the prosecutor has to feel certain that the evidence gathered at that point will hold up in court. This is very possibly a murder case. It is incredibly difficult to convict without a body. And so they don't want to pull that trigger prematurely due to double jeopardy. It's possible that in the meantime that they could charge a POI with some lesser crime if they had enough evidence that it would hold up a court of law, but there are reasons sometimes that they sit back and watch.

So a little more explanation than what differentiates a search warrant from an arrest warrant, but that's because its complicated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zebra Lady]

Bathroom selfie checkered skirt, November 7th

The HR 2 has the GPS feature
http://mobile.kohls.com/product/prd...gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CIDOz_6qw9ECFcUMPwodQccDcQ

 

[gam]

You'd think in the digital era, it'd be pretty easy to tie someone to something and get an arrest warrant though.

Read ZuZu's case here on websleuths. She's been missing since Oct, police have named a POI and last I looked no arrest yet. Lots of cases here like that.

 

[Deli66]

But according to MSM the SG hasn't worked at ML since October, so him showing up randomly at the time and asking for help with his car would probably have her questioning why are you here IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So is this a fact he asked for help as his car broke down or is it theory?

Sent from my SM-S902L using Tapatalk

 

[recovering]

I wouldn't think that. I would think that it aids the police in their investigation but in order to indict they need to have charges or counts laid out and fully supported in order to get a grand jury to support an arrest warrant.

So realistically, say it was known SG and DS were only known as co-workers. Say, SG was laid off for performance reasons. Say, SG has a small criminal past, but nothing major. He is just known to LE in the area who were canvassing who DS may have known for possible leads. Say, on top of this, he fits a profile.

With that information, could it be possible to obtain a search warrant? How much more information would be needed?

I'm just curious. Is that enough?

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

An arrest warrant comes after a search warrant and needs to have specific charges attached to it. Police need to be careful in assessing those charges and at this stage without a body they may not be prepared to do so.

Also, search warrants have to be very specific as to what they are looking for. For example, LE would have to specify "electronic devices" or "guns, knives, or other weapons". They can't just go in on a fishing expedition and seize whatever they feel like.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

A search warrant is an order signed by a judge that authorizes police officers to search for specific objects or materials at a definite location. For example, a warrant may authorize the search of "the single-dwelling premises at 11359 Happy Glade Avenue” and direct the police to search for and seize "cash, betting slips, record books, and every other means used in connection with placing bets on horses."

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[persimmon]

Once an arrest is made things can move quickly if the individual exercises their right to have that happen. As such, they would be entitled to discovery and once that phase of a criminal trial begins they have to have all their facts straight and charges laid out.

In a case like this where an investigation is ongoing and the missing person is still missing, police would be foolish to try to rush an indictment. This is especially true since the individual has clearly exercised their right to not self incriminate. Many criminals talk and in so doing they assist the police in doing their job. If a person refuses to talk then police have a more difficult job to do and that's the case in this situation.

 

[Skigirl]

There are other businesses within that building and from what I can see Sedgewick is one of them...they handle sick leave and fmla cases.

Sedgewick handles FMLA cases for all sorts of companies; I had to deal with them when my mother was diagnosed with cancer and I wanted to take a leave from my company in NC to help her in another state. I don't think their proximity to MetLife makes it more likely that they would handle FMLA claims for a third-party security company, but they do have such a large amount of the market, that it's possible. O/T they are horrible morons and I eventually had to seek out SVPs at the company via LinkedIn to get my claim straightened out because my case manager kept saying that my mother's oncologist wasn't filling out the forms properly. I was not the only one at my company that had that issue. Just thinking about it makes my blood pressure spike.

 

[soanyway]

Thank you this. IMO, also important to note that LE announced they believed DS was a victim of a crime on Dec. 19th (after the initial search) and seized the mattress and vehicles on Dec 22nd. BBM

Farmington Hills police issued a statement Monday, Dec. 19, tat said it's believed she was the victim of a crime and evidence collected during the search is still being analyzed.
"Investigators have collected evidence currently under analysis and examination," Farmington Hills police said. "No information will be released regarding the specifics of the case in order to maintain the integrity of an active investigation.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/12/search_for_missing_farmington.html

A home in Berkley where a security guard lives with his wife has been searched multiple times in connection with the search of missing Danielle Stislicki.
Stislicki was last seen on December 2 as she left work at Metlife in Southfield.
The security guard also works, or worked, at Metlife.
An attorney for the man says, like any other citizen, he has the right to not talk to police and that he has nothing to say to them. He has not been arrested.
Thursday night, Farmington Hills Police and crime scene investigators returned to the man's home on Oxford where they took a mattress as possible evidence.
The man's wife had been in the hospital until Thursday.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/security-g...issing-danielle-stislicki-of-farmington-hills

This is an explanation of the differences from FindLaw:

Probable Cause for Arrest

Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause must come from specific facts and circumstances, rather than simply from the officer's hunch or suspicion.

"Detentions" short of arrest do not require probable cause. Such temporary detentions require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants while officers execute a search warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.

Detentions can ripen into arrests, and the point where that happens is not always clear. Often, police state that they are arresting a person, place him/her in physical restraints, or take other action crossing the line into arrest. These police actions may trigger the constitutional requirement of probable cause.

Someone arrested or charged without probable cause may seek redress through a civil lawsuit for false arrest or malicious prosecution.

Probable Cause to Search

Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched, or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.

Search warrants must specify the place to be searched, as well as items to be seized.

There are many instances where a search warrant is not required. Common situations in which police are allowed to search without a warrant include:

when they have consent from the person in charge of the premises (although who that person is can be a tricky legal question);
when conducting certain searches connected to a lawful arrest; and
in emergency situations which threaten public safety or the loss of evidence.

Police also do not need a warrant to search or seize contraband "in plain site" when the officer has a right to be present.

Probable Cause to Seize Property

Probable cause to seize property exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that the item is contraband, is stolen, or constitutes evidence of a crime.

When a search warrant is in play, police generally must search only for the items described in the warrant. However, any contraband or evidence of other crimes they come across may, for the most part, be seized as well.

Should evidence prove to have resulted from an illegal search, it becomes subject to the "exclusionary rule" and cannot be used against the defendant in court. After hearing arguments from the prosecuting and defense attorneys, the judge decides whether evidence should be excluded.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html

 

[Skigirl]

Read ZuZu's case here on websleuths. She's been missing since Oct, police have named a POI and last I looked no arrest yet. Lots of cases here like that.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the argument, "LE has not made an arrest after all this time, therefore, they must have dropped their suspicions about the POI" just to see the POI arrested months or years later. It takes time to build a case and the last thing investigators want to do is arrest someone and then have to let him/her go for lack of evidence, or worse, take a case forward and not get a conviction. It's a lifetime for her family and loved ones (and those of us who care about her and them), but six weeks is a mere flash in terms of the justice system's timeline.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

So realistically, say it was known SG and DS were only known as co-workers. Say, SG was laid off for performance reasons. Say, SG has a small criminal past, but nothing major. He is just known to LE in the area who were canvassing who DS may have known for possible leads. Say, on top of this, he fits a profile.

With that information, could it be possible to obtain a search warrant? How much more information would be needed?

I'm just curious. Is that enough?

Nope, nowhere near enough. That fact pattern likely describes any number of people she comes in contact with. For a search warrant, LE needs specific evidence tying SG to a possible crime against DS, like her cell phone pings at his house and her phone going dead thereafter. Or security video of them together and then him alone in her car later. Or his fingerprints in her vehicle. AND they also need to specify exactly what they are looking for in the search. If they say "electronic devices" and they see bloody clothing they can't take the bloody clothing. They would have to get another warrant for that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[6AMLatte]

As I mentioned in another post....it is a feature of the app and requires the phone to act as the GPS. You have to manually set your app to track. You only do this when going for a walk / run / bike ride, it's not something that is just a quick swipe of screen either so doing it when under duress would be unlikely

The HR 2 has the GPS feature
http://mobile.kohls.com/product/prd...gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CIDOz_6qw9ECFcUMPwodQccDcQ

 

[persimmon]

Nope, nowhere near enough. That fact pattern likely describes any number of people she comes in contact with. For a search warrant, LE needs specific evidence tying SG to a possible crime against DS, like her cell phone pings at his house and her phone going dead thereafter. Or security video of them together and then him alone in her car later. Or his fingerprints in her vehicle. AND they also need to specify exactly what they are looking for in the search. If they say "electronic devices" and they see bloody clothing they can't take the bloody clothing. They would have to get another warrant for that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Additionally, DS was not his boss so IF he was laid off that wouldn't have any bearing on her.

 

[Skigirl]

I am just not sure. If she has a model that enables GPS and uses that function then I think it's fair to assume she uses a mobile app.

If she had Bluetooth turned ON on her phone AND her Fitbit was always syncing in realtime (I do that but I don't know if most do) then that info should have been collected in real time.

I am dumb about the technology of apps, but It's totally possible that with Bluetooth synced info could have gone straight to the cloud, which could mean that someone might be able to retrieve it. But she would also had to have programmed it to track her at that time.

So a lot of IF'S, if she even was wearing it. But hopefully!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean, I know this would be a good thing in Danielle's case, but all this talk about being able to track people via their wearables and such is making me want to don my tinfoil hat.

 

[kammiemc]

I wouldn't think that. I would think that it aids the police in their investigation but in order to indict they need to have charges or counts laid out and fully supported in order to get a grand jury to support an arrest warrant.

That was said much more expertly than how I phrased it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rust Cohle]

Or you know, they found nothing the first time and went back for a second...

There's always another explanation.

(modsnip) A search warrant is issued as a one time use ONLY, additional searches require additional warrants. The fact the home was searched twice means the first search was limited to certain items/area, that search provided additional probable cause to get another search warrant for additional items that earlier were not relevant but are now. Getting a search warrant is a big deal, and difficult to do.