How is it that you are forgetting that part?
Did she have to undue the warrants, search and arrest, or did she have to undue her order to take temporary custody of the children? I think the warrants still stand as they gathered boxes of materials, etc and are still processing it for potential criminal action.
The evidence was siezed under the first warrant in relation to a crime committed against SARAH JESSOP (doesn't exist) by DALE BARLOW (hasn't been in Texas for 30 years)
Not exactly solid ground
They can process, tag, classify, photograph, catalog and prioritize all they like. It will not change the facts of what they did to obtain that (alleged) evidence.
The County Sheriff stood at the gate of the Ranch with CPS and Texas Rangers knowing the warrants were incorrect and said nothing. He did not lift a finger or say a word to attempt to stop the raid until they knew what was really going on. At that point law enforcement had been advised and had verified that the only person suspected of posing an immediate risk to children was not located at the ranch which was the basis for the warrants. That destroys the good faith argument requirement to admit evidence obtained from a search performed under an incorrect warrant.
Texas Rangers and CPS entered the facility under those warrants on the rather preposterous story that the calls were coming from the ranch. The very first thing they would have done was run the name Dale Barlow in NCIC and found out on May 30 that he was living two states away. Yet they went to the judge and swore off on a warrant that was based on him and named him as the primary suspect. With such a reasonable doubt they had a duty to tell the judge Dale Barlow did not appear to live at the ranch as the non-existent "Sarah" claimed in the calls. They apparently did not do that. Once again this prior knowledge by law enforcement which had been advised and verified by the Federal Government NCIC Database that the only person suspected of posing an immediate risk to children was not located at the ranch destroys the good faith argument requirement to admit evidence obtained from a search performed under an incorrect warrant.
So, now you have the Judge's order being overturned and under orders from two Superior Courts to return the children and she being uncooperative about it and attempts to place unreasonable restrictions on the return of the children thus indicating poor judgment and perhaps even an agenda.
Combine that with the facts of conflicting information being ignored in order to obtain the warrants in the first place.
Add in the fact that the judge that signed off on the warrant is the same judge that ordered the detention of the women and children which will be argued as an indication of agenda-driven behavior.
This entire debacle was carried out by just three key people. That would be Judge Walther, Texas Ranger Brooks Long, and Newbridge Family Shelter (non-CPS) Flora Jessop. This is the very same Flora Jessop that informed reporters (for the first time) over a week after the raid that “it was common knowledge” that “Sarah Barlow was married to a man in his thirties.” It is very clear that there is no “Sarah” that made cell phone calls from the ranch and the information from Flora Jessop is at the very least on it’s face a partial lie.
A good defense lawyer(s) will (and with good cause) have the evidence tossed based on those very reasons. Or at least we ALL damn well better hope so as if it is allowed in a criminal proceeding to use evidence gathered under a warrant based upon such outrageous circumstance then the cops and judges have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to obey any part of the law, they merely need to be sure their stories are at least "sort of similar" when they go after someone else they don’t like.
What was the probable cause for obtaining the warrants given that the Texas Supreme Court has decided that insufficient cause existed to take any of the children?