phone records

[MyBelle]

Oh I guess I did miss it!

Once again I wish we a an "ask a lawyer" thread on this forum.

First off, in the case of phone records, I think a subpoena would be what was needed, b/c they would be asking for records from a company. The police can't go in and "search" the phone companies premises to do that. That's what a warrant does. Search a specific place, for specific items.

Like the warrants that were obtained for the Rs house.

Regardless though, I'm fairly certain that the DA files the paperwork to a judge to get a warrant/subpoena, and the police "execute" it, meaning that they present the subpoena to the company/office for the records to be pulled together, or as in the case of a warrant, they execute it by showing up at someone's house, and preform the search.

I don't see anywhere in your link a clear statement as to who exactly "gets" the warrant/subpoena.

I of course could be wrong about this, if someone is more knowledgable please chime in.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[RANCH]

Oh I guess I did miss it!

Once again I wish we a an "ask a lawyer" thread on this forum.

First off, in the case of phone records, I think a subpoena would be what was needed, b/c they would be asking for records from a company. The police can't go in and "search" the phone companies premises to do that. That's what a warrant does. Search a specific place, for specific items.

Like the warrants that were obtained for the Rs house.

Regardless though, I'm fairly certain that the DA files the paperwork to a judge to get a warrant/subpoena, and the police "execute" it, meaning that they present the subpoena to the company/office for the records to be pulled together, or as in the case of a warrant, they execute it by showing up at someone's house, and preform the search.

I don't see anywhere in your link a clear statement as to who exactly "gets" the warrant/subpoena.

I of course could be wrong about this, if someone is more knowledgable please chime in.

Read my link again. It uses an example of getting bank records using a search warrant vs a subpoena. Similar enough to phone records for me. It talks about law enforcement investigators not having subpoena power and instead using search warrants, with probable cause, issued by a judge or magistrate.

Plus a search warrant allows a law enforcement officer to apply "pressure" on a business to hand over documents in a way that subpoenas don't.

Steve Thomas should have gotten a search warrant for those records in my opinion.

 

[RANCH]

I posted a link that explains the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant.

Phone companies require subpoenas:

http://smallbusiness.bellsouth.com/subpoena/

Of course they do. They also must abide by a search warrant if one is issued by a judge. MOO.

 

[bettybaby00]

Read my link again. It uses an example of getting bank records using a search warrant vs a subpoena. Similar enough to phone records for me. It talks about law enforcement investigators not having subpoena power and instead using search warrants, with probable cause, issued by a judge or magistrate.

Plus a search warrant allows a law enforcement officer to apply "pressure" on a business to hand over documents in a way that subpoenas don't.

Steve Thomas should have gotten a search warrant for those records in my opinion.

Maybe you could c&p what part you're referring to.

All I'm seeing is language that says, "a police officer 'enforcing' or 'executing a warrant," which is not the same as "getting the warrant."

 

[redheadedgal]

BILL BICKEL
Did the Ramseys call anybody BEFORE they called 911?

STEVE THOMAS
Great question, and one that I had — toll records, phone records, are so simple and Police 101. But for some reason I couldn’t make that any clearer to Hunter/Demuth/Hpofstrom in order to obtain those elementary warrants. And since the “small foreign faction” were going to [use] a telephone to make the contact, the warrant would have been easy to obtain, through the nexus. But once again, when I left the investigation, records still had not been obtained.

http://crimejusticeandamerica.com/sthomas1

 

[bettybaby00]

BILL BICKEL
Did the Ramseys call anybody BEFORE they called 911?

STEVE THOMAS
Great question, and one that I had — toll records, phone records, are so simple and Police 101. But for some reason I couldn’t make that any clearer to Hutner/Demuth/Hpofstrom in order to obtain those elementary warrants. And since the “small foreign faction” were going to [use] a telephone to make the contact, the warrant would have been easy to obtain, through the nexus. But once again, when I left the investigation, records still had not been obtained.

http://crimejusticeandamerica.com/sthomas1

I posted a link to that, one where another poster quoted this text. Very straight forward to me

 

[MyBelle]

BILL BICKEL
Did the Ramseys call anybody BEFORE they called 911?

STEVE THOMAS
Great question, and one that I had — toll records, phone records, are so simple and Police 101. But for some reason I couldn’t make that any clearer to Hutner/Demuth/Hpofstrom in order to obtain those elementary warrants. And since the “small foreign faction” were going to [use] a telephone to make the contact, the warrant would have been easy to obtain, through the nexus. But once again, when I left the investigation, records still had not been obtained.

http://crimejusticeandamerica.com/sthomas1

Exactly. There is no debate. It is an outrageous failure on the part of the DA's office.

JMO

 

[RANCH]

Maybe you could c&p what part you're referring to.

All I'm seeing is language that says, "a police officer 'enforcing' or 'executing a warrant," which is not the same as "getting the warrant."

This may help.

A search warrant is an order issued by a magistrate or judge authorizing law enforcement officers to search a particular place for specific documents or tangible property or for types of documents or property. Search warrants are utilized only in criminal investigations and are ordinarily granted to government investigators without notice to either the party being investigated or the party whose property is to be searched. The only requirement for a search warrant is that the government establish “probable cause” to believe that valid grounds exist to support the search. Probable cause is commonly established by an affidavit prepared by a government investigator.

This part uses a bank when its customer is being investigated as an example. Similar to a phone company and its customer right?

An officer is given considerable discretion in determining how to proceed with execution of the warrant. However, the executing officer will typically allow someone who is not a target of the investigation (such as a bank, when its customer is being investigated) to voluntarily produce the items sought within a reasonable time. The very real threat to disrupt business by performing a full search of the premises is usually enough to obtain that person’s cooperation.

http://www.bsblawyers.com/responding-to-subpoenas-and-search-warrants/

 

[RANCH]

BILL BICKEL
Did the Ramseys call anybody BEFORE they called 911?

STEVE THOMAS
Great question, and one that I had — toll records, phone records, are so simple and Police 101. But for some reason I couldn’t make that any clearer to Hunter/Demuth/Hpofstrom in order to obtain those elementary warrants. And since the “small foreign faction” were going to [use] a telephone to make the contact, the warrant would have been easy to obtain, through the nexus. But once again, when I left the investigation, records still had not been obtained.

http://crimejusticeandamerica.com/sthomas1

Yes it's "Police 101." That's why I want to know why a police officer named Steve Thomas who was an investigator in the murder of JBR didn't write up an affidavit for a search warrant and get the phone records himself.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I've fallen down another rabbit hole....I've fallen and can't get up!

lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation
By Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis



They got the records.. There was nothing there.

 

[bettybaby00]

This may help.



This part uses a bank when its customer is being investigated as an example. Similar to a phone company and its customer right?



http://www.bsblawyers.com/responding-to-subpoenas-and-search-warrants/

Ugggghhhh, when I quote you, it doesn't pick up the text in quotes...

Anyway....this is my point

A search warrant is an order issued by a magistrate or judge authorizing law enforcement officers to search a particular place for specific documents or tangible property or for types of documents or property.


ISSUED BY A JUDGE.....authorizing LE....

This is not a statement about who goes to the judge to obtain the warrant, which is then EXECUTED by LO

See what I'm trying to say?

 

[Linda7NJ]

JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation

By Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis







They got the records.. There was nothing there.

John's cell phone records were not included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

John's cell phone records were not included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes they were. Only company records were not included. All house and cell phone records were included.

 

[RANCH]

Ugggghhhh, when I quote you, it doesn't pick up the text in quotes...

Anyway....this is my point

A search warrant is an order issued by a magistrate or judge authorizing law enforcement officers to search a particular place for specific documents or tangible property or for types of documents or property.


ISSUED BY A JUDGE.....authorizing LE....

This is not a statement about who goes to the judge to obtain the warrant, which is then EXECUTED by LO

See what I'm trying to say?

No. I don't understand what your trying to say. It appears that your saying that LE officers can't write up affidavits for a search warrant and give it to a judge to sign. Let me find another link.

Obtaining a Search Warrant

Only judges may issue search warrants. To obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is justified. Officers must support this showing with sworn statements (affidavits), and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. Judges must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether or not to issue the warrant. When issuing a search warrant, the judge may restrict the when and how the police may conduct the search.

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

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes they were. Only company records were not included. All house and cell phone records were included.

John had a company cell phone. Those records were not turned over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation
By Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis



They got the records.. There was nothing there.

That's not exactly what he says, there's more to it..

We achieved a Pyrrhic victory on November 5 when Beckner burst into the SitRoom and proudly handed me a "Consent to Release of Telephone Records" signed by both John Ramsey and Pete Hofstrom. It allowed us to obtain the Ramseys' cellular and home telephone records between December 1 and 27, 1996. We had to wait almost a year to see them, which had given the Ramsey lawyers months to work through the limited documents. The woefully incomplete permission slip did not give up Ramsey's company phones, calls made with a telephone card, or records about calls before or after December. We found nothing worthwhile. Just another exhausting trip to nowhere.

I sent a fax to AirTouch in Washington state and personally served the paper on US West in downtown Denver.

"I've been waiting for a phone call from you guys since last December," a telephone company security official said as he handed me the packer. "Usually cops come and get these things right away."

I winced, so tired of being embarassed by this case.

"Yeah, I get subpoenas and warrants every day," he repeated. "Surprised you took so long."

"I'll have to explain it to you someday," I replied and headed for the elevator.

The AirTouch cell phone records were useless. Ramsey started the service in January 1994. AirTouch said that 91 minutes of use were logged during the August-September billing period of 1996, and 108 minutes were used in September-October. October-November was just as busy.

December, however, the only period we were allowed to see, was empty. No calls at all. I asked if someone could have removed billing records from the computer? "No way," the AirTouch source told me.

"All these months preceding December are busy, and not one call was logged for that entire month?"

The representative was firm: "There ain't no way anybody altered these records." It wasn't logical. A search warrant might have answered the questions eleven months ago, but we had only this thin new "consent."

Checking the records, I found a repeat caller to John Ramsey's private office line. Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.

Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me. The experience demonstrated how deeply John Ramsey was plugged into the Democratic Party power structure. Colorado Governor Roy Romer was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and advised by the politically astute Hal Haddon, one of John Ramsey's attorneys. Haddon's firm prepared President Clinton's taxes. When Schoettler left office, she was appointed head of the US delegation to an international commission by President Clinton.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It says what it says in black and white. They had the records. Landline and cell phone records. They had them and there was nothing in them.

 

[gramcracker]

the cel phone records were included in the scope of the records allowed to be revealed. for certain months that were provided (Aug-Nov) the shield was that only the total number of monthly minutes was revealed rather than individual phone numbers and whether they were incoming or outgoing

for the month covered by the allowed reveal (Dec) the cel phone records were a blank. zip, nada, zilch. not only were individual calls not collated, a total number of minutes for December did not exist

which, I will say/commit to, is why JR finally signed a consent. the deed was done

 

[Linda7NJ]

TOM HANEY: Let me back you up again. We talked about that phone, possible phone lines. Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--

PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at Christmas, little teeny one.

TOM HANEY: Was it activated?

PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's activated when you buy it.

TOM HANEY: It's not much of a present if it doesn't work?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, I think it was activated.

TOM HANEY: Probably. Do you recall the phone number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: How about John's cell phone, do you recall that number?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?

PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.

TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?

PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.

TOM HANEY: And where were they normally kept?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: His--

PATSY RAMSEY: His was usually charging somewhere, probably in his briefcase or something.

TOM HANEY: Did he have a charger set up somewhere though or--

PATSY RAMSEY: Um, I don't remember.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?

PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no.

Okay, so Patsy is charging a phone that she bought for herself ("he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one.") She does not put those words in John's mouth. She was, instead, busted! I, Patsy, buy a phone and do not tell you, John, who will not know that there will be a bill for it because I, Patsy,will pay the bill out of the household allowance you give me and thus hide it from you, but you, John, having discovered this phone, know that I will be committed to a contract for at least a year or two, and you therefore know that some of the money you allow to me will be going for this phone, so I will admit that I bought it, or, in other words, "I will just take this one."

Meanwhile, John has his own phones through Access Graphics. ("Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.")

We can infer certain reasonable facts from all this. John had a couple of new-ish cellphones as part of his job with Access. These phones would have been paid for by Lockheed-Martin. His secretary Denise, in her capacity as an employee of Lockheed-Martin, recently got him one of these new ones, which makes sense, because Lockheed-Martin would have wanted John, as a fairly important employee of theirs, to be accessible on-the-go. In 1996, the communication protocols by which cellphones technically worked were not unified across America and Europe, there were several different kinds (GSM, CDMA, etc.), and John traveled often to foreign countries, so he needed Lockheed to pay for a phone that worked domestically, and one that worked overseas. Patsy, separately, bought John a cellphone years before 1996, and at some unspecified time, John lost Patsy's gift to him.

In sum: In December of 1996, John had at least two phones, and Patsy had a new one, a Panasonic.

Edited to add: Of course, this all begs the question of whether warrants were obtained to get the Access Graphics cellphone records. If John made calls on his Access phone on the morning of the 26th, BPD could have asked all day long for the Ramsey records and would find no calls made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki