WI WI - Kelly Dwyer, 27, Milwaukee, 11 Oct 2013 - #1

[AJLH1221]

If KZ was being held for 72 hours (versus being arrested formally) it wouldn't be necessary to post bail before he was released. He saw a judge on Sunday and was released after posting bail on Monday. The wording used in the article is "charged on Sunday". Shouldn't they have said arraigned?
When someone is arrested, doesn't that mean they have already been charged or informed why they're being taken into custody?
(versus held or taken in for questioning?)




Not necessarily. They can arrest you and then they actually have 72 hours to charge you. Yes, you can sit for 72 hours with no charges. It is ridiculous but I have personally experienced it.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Very few people showed up 6-8 we recovered cell but it was not Kellys Psychic said woodex area near water pretty vague. We have plans to bring k9 team down next weekend guy by name Robert T Larson. Right now cops won't even release what she was wearing or anything very frustrating. Time lapsed cameras we must know did she leave. KZ says they go to apt then they leave to get drugs so is this story true if not toss obstructing charge in mix. Kelly made 3 calls dad , mom and ex Bf on wend then spent night with Jay from kenosha after my questioning of him he states he left approx 11:45pm wend they twe n this week hey texted back and forth till thursday after noon. No one saw her after thursday night. There was possibly text friday from kenosha guy and a reply from kelly but this cant be confirmed. Although kenosha guy has a questionable criminal pass unless we can confirm she left apt or not we are stuck with her not leaving apt. If we can confirm she left then we can look beyound KZ if not we are at a standstill. What do we do next were do we start K9 were do we search and do we take psyic serious. Im pulling my hair out and I don t have much left. The K9 was suppose to come down this week but there vehicle was totalled in accident and while I would love to help with transportation I can't as I am financially strapped and was let go from my job this week hoping to find new employment asap. I have spent a lot of money on case already and will never charge family anything. With this said no time is better then now for someone to come forward with information because I can not give up till we ffindkelly. I am thinking of holding a fundraiser locally to offset cost of everything. Its in my heart to find every Missing person and Im hoping that somehow someway God provides some help and guildance

Oploc, wow. I've already been in trouble on WS lately (yesterday) on another case so, I'm not sure if we're allowed to post about Kenosha guy or ex bf here as that info hasn't been reported in the news.
Just to clarify, ex bf and Kenosha guy are separate individuals, right?
Also, per your info, Kelly and Kenosha guy had a date on Wednesday evening, right? (She didn't spend the night with him, just the evening, right?)
If your source is correct, then Kelly was recently in contact with her ex bf.
Then one has to wonder did they end as friends, keep in touch often but relationship was in balance (meaning both parties were happy remaining friends), etc.

Mke2013, I didn't think you wanted the ex bf arrested. If it were up to me, I'd speculate potential perps up and down and all around until the case gets solved.
Look how many posts I have on WS, and I still manage to violate the rules sometimes. At least I have to try to ward off going there when I realize a thread is about to veer off in an iffy direction. That's why I posted the slippery slope post relative to an ex bf (not to shut down other theories).

Oploc's post explains the dynamics of the case well, because LE hasn't given anything, not one bite, other than info surrounding KZ.

The lack of news causes us to be kind of stuck here until more information is released to the public.

Oploc, you have a good heart!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I saw on the news yesterday that there was a search conducted based on a tip from a psychic. Any details on that tip? What did the psychic exactly say?

Welcome to Websleuths Kipper.

I'm sorry (and have no real authority here) but we're not allowed psychic theories on WS. I guess it's okay you mentioned it, but we don't develop theories around psychic insights.

If the tip was related to Oploc's search, I guess whatever it was didn't pan out. Would have been great if it had though.

 

[Ravynne]

What would be the reason LE wouldn't confirm or deny whether the saw her leaving on the video? Especially since the only one mentioned as POI is KZ?

In my head that don't make sense, but I could be off.

 

[fernia]

There is so much that hinges on these cameras:

Was Kelly alone when seen entering Lafayette Park Towers ?

Why wasn't she seen again on the cameras if KZ is honest when saying she (or they) left to purchase cocaine?

And of course when leaving Friday morning?

Either the cameras are absolutely useless or KZ is full of lies. Maybe it was all a very poor plan to explain why he was seen with her at the place across the street.

That would mean anything he said about that night should be ignored. It would sure help if someone that worked at Allium would say how often Kelly visited, with whom, and did she and KZ canoodle or appear as just friends.

 

[fernia]

Could this be something to consider with Kelly took?

http://fox6now.com/2013/11/26/famil...ieves-she-may-be-victim-of-human-trafficking/

 

[Justiceforever]

Could this be something to consider with Kelly took?

http://fox6now.com/2013/11/26/famil...ieves-she-may-be-victim-of-human-trafficking/

Cassandra Lafave has been found safe! :loveyou:

 

[nevereverever]

Hey everyone. I've just spent several hours reading through this whole thread. I am hoping that Kelly is found safe.

I'm an attorney, so I can shed a little light on the Miranda rights issue. As someone else already explained, you only have to be read Miranda rights if you are in custody and being interrogated. It's usually pretty clear if you're being interrogated or not. Where you find all the thorny legal issues is in the area of whether or not someone is in custody. On one end of the spectrum is, you've been placed under arrest, handcuffed, booked, and put in a locked interrogation room. Clearly, you are in custody. On the other end is the cops approach you on the street, explain why they are contacting you, ask if you are willing to speak with them, make clear that you are under no obligation to do so, and make clear to you that you are free to leave at any time. Clearly, you are not in custody in that situation. It is exceedingly rare for officers not to read Miranda in the first example. In my 12 years experience, I've seen it happen maybe twice. On the other, it's really an officer preference. A lot of officers never read Miranda in situations that are clearly not custodial; some will if they think the person they're questioning might be involved, just to be sure. But again, in the vast area in between where it's not black and white as to whether it is custody is where some officers err on the side of reading Miranda, while others won't. What determines whether someone is in custody? (Keep in mind what I'm talking about is general principles under Miranda and the US constitution and that case law. I don't know if WI has any state constitutional provisions or statutes that could potentially impose a more stringent standard. Most states do not.) It is a host of factors, but the key question is "would a reasonable person in that situation feel they were under arrest?" Sometimes, this is stated as "would a reasonable person under those circumstances feel free to leave?" but you can be detained, that is temporarily not allowed to leave, but not be considered in custody. Alright, so how do courts decide that? Well, they are supposed to look at a totality of the circumstances. Things to consider include whether they were in handcuffs, whether their movement has been restricted, whether they were transported from one place to another (to the police station, for example), have the police all but told them they are taking them to jail, the intensity of the interrogation etc. No one is absolutely determinative; it is the totality of the circumstances.

So, in this case, we know KZ was interviewed initially in his home. That is one factor that would point away from it being custodial. But we don't know nearly enough to know whether he was in custody for purposes of Miranda. Did they handcuff him? Did he ask them to leave and they all but refused, continuing to press him in an accusatory way? Did they say anything to him during the questioning that a reasonable person would interpret as the officers saying they're under arrest? All these things are essential to know.

Also, I just wanted to add that any lawyer worth his salt is going to challenge the search warrant in a case like this. You have to; it's your job. But the vast majority of defense challenges to validity of a search warrant are denied.

With all that in mind, it's way too soon to jump to a conclusion that LE "blew it" or "he's going to get off" or things like that.

 

[Snoods]

Nancy Grace is doing a segment on Kelly tonight, if anyone is interested. I'll post here if there are any new "BOMBSHELLS TONIGHT" for those of you that can't watch.

So sorry for Kelly's family going through their first Thanksgiving without her.

 

[Snoods]

Wasn't the drive seized under a warrant for search and seizure for drugs and paraphernalia? Fourth amendment says that a warrant must specify the type of evidence, and given that an external drive or data disc most certainly would not have been labelled CP, it could be argued that it certainly doesn't fall under the purview of the warrant. The lawyers might argue it as an illegal seizure and thus inadmissible, leaving prosecution with no evidence...

Edit: I meant that obvious evidence sitting in plain sight unrelated to a warrant can be seized as well, but in this case the evidence isn't obvious visually until the drive/disc is taken and actually searched.

Thank you nevereverever for your professional insight, I was hoping a lawyer would pop onto Kelly's thread :seeya:. What is your opinion as to the scenario above that Samuke has laid out? It does seem as if LE stumbled upon the CP. Although I believe if there were anything fuzzy about the search warrant it would already be known, I've wondered about this too. TIA

 

[Snoods]

On NG, guest stating Kelly wasn't seen leaving on the condo's surveillance cameras, nor was she seen leaving on any footage examined from 20 cameras on surrounding buildings in the area.

Tony Dwyer, Kelly's father, is on right now. He says using the term BF about KZ in regards to Kelly should be used loosely. She was working 3 jobs, loved her family, would never leave voluntarily. Doesn't know where they met, she spoke of him from time to time. KZ is despicable in regards to CP. (He looks broken, sad, very depressed).

That's about it.

 

[SmoothOperator]

As everyone knows I am clearly not a lawyer, but am merely just throwing in my .02cents worth on the issue of the search warrant and whether it covers the child pornography that was found and thus brought about additional, unrelated(to the drug, or missing person's case) criminal charges against KZ..

The way I understand it is that when there is a valid search warrant executed for the computer, disks, thumb drives, additional hard drives, etc under such circumstances of being seized for a warrant for drugs or other unrelated to CP crimes, the warrant covers those devices being thoroughly, forensically searched.. If/when that forensic search is being done it is then found to contain child pornography LE will then proceed with another valid search warrant that is issued specifically under the search for child pornography.

The fact that the initial search warrant was issued for the search of someone's computer's, thumb drives, hard drives, etc does cover and is valid for their initial finding of child pornography on any of those seized devices.. And then the fact that the initial find of the CP is legal and valid through the initial search warrant this also gives way for the probable cause(ie.the probable cause being the child porn that was found under the initial search warrant) to have been met in order for a judge to then issue an additional search warrant pursuant to specifically the child pornography ..

I am anxious to have neverever weigh in on this issue as well to see if my understanding is even in the ballpark of being correct...( and that is if one can even decipher my overly wordy, confusing-as-hell explanation I gave as my understanding of the issue:crazy

 

[SmoothOperator]

Thanks Snood for the update from NG.. I am glad to atleast see that her case is still being pursued and that NG is even better in it being national media, rather than just locally..

The info about the 20 something other surveillance cameras ON SURROUNDING BUILDINGS and that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has anything showing Kelly ever leaving the apt building..IMO this is just further lending credence to the fact that Kelly Dwyer never left KZ's apt alive, well, or of her own free will..

Now, its just to find her!... Where and how are all of these grown, adult human beings being hidden, disposed of, that they literally just vanish without a trace??.. I mean how can that be that so many people are disposed of so thoroughly that so many remain UNlocated for years, decades, and sometimes forever???

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Actually, Smoothie...

The posts by you and Neverever regarding Mirandas and search warrants were very helpful to me!

:tyou: to both of you!

 

[nevereverever]

Thank you nevereverever for your professional insight, I was hoping a lawyer would pop onto Kelly's thread :seeya:. What is your opinion as to the scenario above that Samuke has laid out? It does seem as if LE stumbled upon the CP. Although I believe if there were anything fuzzy about the search warrant it would already be known, I've wondered about this too. TIA

It's true that a warrant must specify two things: the place to be searched, and the items they are searching for. Without seeing the actual warrant, I can't say whether the CDs and hard drive were within the "four corners" of the warrant. But, I would be very surprised (it does sometimes happen, but not often) if the officers seized something not covered by the warrant. Am I correct that the CDs and hard drive were seized on a second search warrant--not the one initially executed to search for drugs, but one that was issued to search for evidence of his involvement in KD's disappearance? If that is the case, I would expect that the warrant specifically covered computers, hard drives, CDs etc. Again, I'd need to see the actual warrant to be sure, but that would be pretty standard. If the hard drive and CDs were seized in the drug search warrant, then it's still possible the warrant would have included digital storage devices like hard drives and CDs because they were apparently investigating the crime of maintaining a drug house and possession with intent to deliver, and they could have asked for those things with the idea that records of drug deals might be on such items. I haven't typically seen that in my experience (because drug dealers don't usually keep this info on computer, but usually on paper), but it's not impossible.

Now, search warrants can only be issued on a judicial finding of probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that evidence of that crime is at the place to be searched. Once a warrant is issued, most states say that anything seized by an officer acting in good faith on that warrant, cannot be excluded by a judge later determining that there really wasn't enough to meet the probable cause standard. (The state I practice in is actually a little different in this regard, but that's because our state constitution contains stronger privacy rights than the 4th Amendment under the US Const.) However, if the defense can establish that any misinformation was given to the judge to obtain the search warrant or if any information was omitted from the application for the warrant, and had that misinformation not been included or omitted, there would not have been probable cause to issue the warrant, then the warrant and any evidence obtained as a result can be thrown out. (There are some other things that can lead to evidence being thrown out--if the warrant is executed in an unreasonable way, like breaking down the door when you have a key, doing the search at night w/o the warrant specifically authorizing it, failing to knock and announce your presence etc. But I haven't seen anything to indicate anything like that is in play here.)

The way Miranda rights play into this, of course, is that, if any of the information given to the judge to get the warrant was itself illegally obtained, in violation of Miranda for example, then the court has to determine if there was still probable cause to issue the warrant even without any of that information.

I hope that helps, without being too much "legalese."

 

[nevereverever]

As everyone knows I am clearly not a lawyer, but am merely just throwing in my .02cents worth on the issue of the search warrant and whether it covers the child pornography that was found and thus brought about additional, unrelated(to the drug, or missing person's case) criminal charges against KZ..

The way I understand it is that when there is a valid search warrant executed for the computer, disks, thumb drives, additional hard drives, etc under such circumstances of being seized for a warrant for drugs or other unrelated to CP crimes, the warrant covers those devices being thoroughly, forensically searched.. If/when that forensic search is being done it is then found to contain child pornography LE will then proceed with another valid search warrant that is issued specifically under the search for child pornography.

The fact that the initial search warrant was issued for the search of someone's computer's, thumb drives, hard drives, etc does cover and is valid for their initial finding of child pornography on any of those seized devices.. And then the fact that the initial find of the CP is legal and valid through the initial search warrant this also gives way for the probable cause(ie.the probable cause being the child porn that was found under the initial search warrant) to have been met in order for a judge to then issue an additional search warrant pursuant to specifically the child pornography ..

I am anxious to have neverever weigh in on this issue as well to see if my understanding is even in the ballpark of being correct...( and that is if one can even decipher my overly wordy, confusing-as-hell explanation I gave as my understanding of the issue:crazy

You're absolutely right.

 

[SmoothOperator]

You're absolutely right.

:cheer:

 

[Snoods]

Thanks Snood for the update from NG.. I am glad to atleast see that her case is still being pursued and that NG is even better in it being national media, rather than just locally..

The info about the 20 something other surveillance cameras ON SURROUNDING BUILDINGS and that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has anything showing Kelly ever leaving the apt building..IMO this is just further lending credence to the fact that Kelly Dwyer never left KZ's apt alive, well, or of her own free will..

Now, its just to find her!... Where and how are all of these grown, adult human beings being hidden, disposed of, that they literally just vanish without a trace??.. I mean how can that be that so many people are disposed of so thoroughly that so many remain UNlocated for years, decades, and sometimes forever???

BBM. Smooth, my ears pricked up when I heard that too. He specifically said from SURROUNDING buildings. Not one single camera recorded her leaving. That is significant.

 

[Snoods]

As everyone knows I am clearly not a lawyer, but am merely just throwing in my .02cents worth on the issue of the search warrant and whether it covers the child pornography that was found and thus brought about additional, unrelated(to the drug, or missing person's case) criminal charges against KZ..

The way I understand it is that when there is a valid search warrant executed for the computer, disks, thumb drives, additional hard drives, etc under such circumstances of being seized for a warrant for drugs or other unrelated to CP crimes, the warrant covers those devices being thoroughly, forensically searched.. If/when that forensic search is being done it is then found to contain child pornography LE will then proceed with another valid search warrant that is issued specifically under the search for child pornography.

The fact that the initial search warrant was issued for the search of someone's computer's, thumb drives, hard drives, etc does cover and is valid for their initial finding of child pornography on any of those seized devices.. And then the fact that the initial find of the CP is legal and valid through the initial search warrant this also gives way for the probable cause(ie.the probable cause being the child porn that was found under the initial search warrant) to have been met in order for a judge to then issue an additional search warrant pursuant to specifically the child pornography ..

I am anxious to have neverever weigh in on this issue as well to see if my understanding is even in the ballpark of being correct...( and that is if one can even decipher my overly wordy, confusing-as-hell explanation I gave as my understanding of the issue:crazy

Bowing down to Smoothie: :bowdown:

 

[J Block]

Miranda is given when there are 2 things. Custody and Interrogation. Custody has a wide scope. Something simple as being in a room w/ a closed door or being handcuffed. You can be in custody and interrogated in a plethora of places, including your own domicile.

I was simply tossing around the idea of how his attorneys think he could get off on a Miranda technicality. The only scenario I could come up w/ is if he was questioned while handcuffed about the drugs. Then if that info is what was used to obtain the search warrant, that is where a problem could arise.

IMO, just because the officer didn't Mirandize Keyes, doesn't necessarily mean Keyes was ever in the position that required a Miranda warning. Thus making that officers statement in court irrelavant.

Hey everyone. I've just spent several hours reading through this whole thread. I am hoping that Kelly is found safe.

I'm an attorney, so I can shed a little light on the Miranda rights issue. As someone else already explained, you only have to be read Miranda rights if you are in custody and being interrogated. It's usually pretty clear if you're being interrogated or not. Where you find all the thorny legal issues is in the area of whether or not someone is in custody. On one end of the spectrum is, you've been placed under arrest, handcuffed, booked, and put in a locked interrogation room. Clearly, you are in custody. On the other end is the cops approach you on the street, explain why they are contacting you, ask if you are willing to speak with them, make clear that you are under no obligation to do so, and make clear to you that you are free to leave at any time. Clearly, you are not in custody in that situation. It is exceedingly rare for officers not to read Miranda in the first example. In my 12 years experience, I've seen it happen maybe twice. On the other, it's really an officer preference. A lot of officers never read Miranda in situations that are clearly not custodial; some will if they think the person they're questioning might be involved, just to be sure. But again, in the vast area in between where it's not black and white as to whether it is custody is where some officers err on the side of reading Miranda, while others won't. What determines whether someone is in custody? (Keep in mind what I'm talking about is general principles under Miranda and the US constitution and that case law. I don't know if WI has any state constitutional provisions or statutes that could potentially impose a more stringent standard. Most states do not.) It is a host of factors, but the key question is "would a reasonable person in that situation feel they were under arrest?" Sometimes, this is stated as "would a reasonable person under those circumstances feel free to leave?" but you can be detained, that is temporarily not allowed to leave, but not be considered in custody. Alright, so how do courts decide that? Well, they are supposed to look at a totality of the circumstances. Things to consider include whether they were in handcuffs, whether their movement has been restricted, whether they were transported from one place to another (to the police station, for example), have the police all but told them they are taking them to jail, the intensity of the interrogation etc. No one is absolutely determinative; it is the totality of the circumstances.

So, in this case, we know KZ was interviewed initially in his home. That is one factor that would point away from it being custodial. But we don't know nearly enough to know whether he was in custody for purposes of Miranda. Did they handcuff him? Did he ask them to leave and they all but refused, continuing to press him in an accusatory way? Did they say anything to him during the questioning that a reasonable person would interpret as the officers saying they're under arrest? All these things are essential to know.

Also, I just wanted to add that any lawyer worth his salt is going to challenge the search warrant in a case like this. You have to; it's your job. But the vast majority of defense challenges to validity of a search warrant are denied.

With all that in mind, it's way too soon to jump to a conclusion that LE "blew it" or "he's going to get off" or things like that.

Thank you for expounding on my brief synopsis