A case for curtailing rights

The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal ^ | 3 September 2003 | David Waters

[Maigrey]

A case for curtailing Rights
By David Waters
waters@gomemphis.com
September 3, 2003

Seven-year-old Tyra Knox disappeared without a trace on a Saturday afternoon.

Well, not quite without a trace.

She was last seen playing with a pink scooter in front of a house right across the street from her house. She was reported missing about 40 minutes later.

Her body was found two days later in that same house right across the street from her house.

Two days later.

Right across the street from her house.

Right in front of the spot where she was last seen.

The predator arrested and charged with her abduction and murder once lived in that same house right across the street.

In 1999 he was arrested at that same house after a caller claimed he was holding an underage female in a shed behind the house.

In 2000 he was arrested at that same house after a woman claimed he was holding her underage daughter in a shed behind the house.

Police searched Tyra's Frayser neighborhood for nearly two days. They used a police helicopter. They used all-terrain vehicles. They used bloodhounds. About 100 neighborhood volunteers joined the search.

Just about everyone was looking for Tyra. But no one searched the house right across the street.

The house Tyra was playing in front of when she was last seen.

The house where police twice arrested a man who was with underage girls.

How is that possible?

Officers knocked on the door, got no answer and left.

"These police cannot walk up to a house and search a house just because they think it's a good idea," state prosecutor Jerry Harris explained.

How about if a child disappears right in front of it?

I'm not blaming the police. Lord knows they are overworked, underpaid and underappreciated, and the bucket brigades on Union Avenue won't change that.

But when a child disappears on her own street police ought to be able to search each and every house, shed, garage, car and trash can on that street as soon as possible, with or without permission.

If the law doesn't allow it the law should be changed.

If Tyra's abductor had put her in a car and police were giving chase they would have broken every traffic law in the books to rescue her. If necessary they would have used deadly force.

And no one from John Ashcroft to Johnnie Cochran would have complained.

When a child disappears we need more than the Amber Alert that tells the public a child is missing.

We need more than Megan's laws that closely track and monitor sexual predators.

When a child disappears we need to give police the authority to search every reasonable location nearby.

Call it Tyra's Law.

"Tyra had a good life," her cousin, Terry Alexander, told a reporter at Tyra's funeral.

"She had a good day that day but what happened was you have an evil presence. Evil is always lurking."

Sometimes it's right across the street.

Contact columnist David Waters at 529-2399 or E-mail waters@gomemphis.com.

[Maigrey]

Hmmm so this journalist wants us to throw out the 4th Amendment, when it's "For the children".

I loathe the piece of trash that did this to this child, but saying that the police can search without probable cause, and without due process is outrageous!

Maybe, instead of being such a loathsome kneejerk socialist, maybe he could suggest how this can be handled better, and for the real benefit of the kids involved, as well as maintaining the Amendments.

[Maigrey]

I thought you might be interested in reading this from the local "Religion" writer.

[sauropod]

Agree. This suggestion is over the top.

[tx_eggman]

In this case, it seems to me that the past history of the house in question was enough for probable cause.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think what the writer is saying is that there WAS probable cause here. The house was where the girl was last seen AND the resident of the house had two prior arrests for holding underage girls there.

[Lurker]

Maybe if the cops had done their job, (going before a magistrate, explaining the perps record, and getting a search warrant), the child might have been found.

Instead, they wore their typical 'cop blinders' and moved on.

L

[trebb]

Kind of a scary proposition, unless of course it was my child who was missing. Then I would not give a hoot about the 4th Amendment...

[Steely Glint]

Robert Bolt, "A Man For All Seasons," dialogue between Sir Thomas More and William Roper over the whether or not the protection of the law should extend to evil:

"Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

There's a reason for the Fourth Amendment. Some people aren't smart enough to know what that reason is. Some of those people, sadly enough, are hired to write for newspapers.

[per loin]

The parents didn't know how to kick in a front door?

[Maigrey]

I got annoyed the longer I read the article, and fired off a letter to the editor.

In regards to David Waters' column dated 03 Spetember 2003, (A case of curtailing rights) I find his reactions over the top and a little out of line with the current laws that are on the books within the state and nation.

Last time I checked, there is the little issue with the 4th amendment, which states that

"...right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I cry over the death of Tyra Knox, like the rest of the community, but instead of writing that the police should ignore the 4th amendment, because it is "for the children", there could be a better evaluation by those who were involved to see where there was a breakdown in communications between the community and the police involved, and see how this process can be streamlined, or amended, where people can search in a more effective manner.

I would hope that instead of spouting ineffective reactions to the horrible death of one so young, Mr. Waters would work to evaluate what did go wrong, and assist the local authorities in devising a solution so that no other children or their families will have to suffer the actions of one so vile. I would hope that the death of Miss Knox will not be in vain. Signed,

(Maigrey)

[Eala]

Thanks for posting that!

[Noachian]

As much as I hate to think about how children are treated by society's sickos I hate the idea of throwing out Constitutional rights more.

If we did away with our rights every time a child or adult was preyed on by the animals that walk our streets we'd have no rights at all.

There is NEVER a time when Constitutional rights can be curtailed without unforeseen consequences. The writer (probably liberal) who is so quick to curtail our rights should wonder what would happen to children if we had no rights at all, and left the Socialists in charge.

It's interesting that the writer, who is so quick to do away with Constitutional rights, never mentioned applying existing law to this case. The man was arrested twice before in cases involving children that would make a search of his home probable cause and they could enter it with a warrant. So why wasn't existing law applied? Why is the writer so quick to jump to throw out the Constitution?

[ladylib]

Why did the parents let her play in front of his house? Where were they?

[Polybius]

Hmmm so this journalist wants us to throw out the 4th Amendment, when it's "For the children"......Maigrey

I think what the writer is saying is that there WAS probable cause here. The house was where the girl was last seen AND the resident of the house had two prior arrests for holding underage girls there......GovernmentShrinker

Exactly.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

This case is not about "throwing out the Fourth Amendment". It is about the meaning of the word "unreasonable.

If we took a time machine and presented this case to the Founding Fathers, which one of them would have considered searching the home of a known child molestor for a missing child that disappeared right in front of the child molestor's home as "unreasonable"?

Over the course of two centuries, activist Judges have perverted the meaning of the Constitution and it's Amedments into meanings that were never intended by the writers of that document.

Thus, American society has reached a point where it is now "unreasonable" to search a known child molestor's property for a missing child that was last seen in the street in front of that property but it is perfectly reasonable and even a Consitutional right to suck out an infant's brain just before it comes out of the mother's birth canal.

"Reasonable". In the days of the Founding Fathers, that word had meaning. It seems that it no longer has any.

[Imal]

It's called a "search warrant". Look into it.

[MainFrame65]

Waters is the captive ignorant buffoon of the Commercial Appeal in Memphis who is assigned to write about religion, but is terminally committed to rendering uninformed opinions on subjects within his view but beyond his purview.

He proves his ignorance of the Constitution, the Bible, or moral principle almost every time he emits one of these rants, and he has done that again here. Of course, his proposal would require amending the Constitution to remove one of our most precious liberties, but Waters has never let that stand in his way.

I used to write letters of protest to the paper, but they will publish only one letter a month. Waters is offensive at least once every week.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Hmmm, this creep's background should have been enough to get a search warrant. Let the courts battle it out later whether it was proper, but save the girl first.

[Maigrey]

First of all, you are correct. The writer is a liberal for a liberal paper in a liberal town. (if you go to my profile page, you can see how I define living here!)

The issues here revolve around how the case was handled in the early hours following her abduction. The person who was eventually arrested and charged for her death did not live at the residence where she was found, but lived there previously. The residence in question was vacant, and had upkeep by the landlord by a caretaker, giving the impression that the residence was still occupied. So, the police, operating under the assumption that the residence was occupied, knocked on the door, and when they did not get a response, looked elsewhere.

The immediate community thought it was an abduction and tried to get police to issue an Amber alert for her, where the local media along with the state-wide authorities could begin looking for her. (and with that, there needs to be a car involved, which there wasn't at the time.)

Eventually, (2 days later) the caretaker came to the residence to check on it, and smelled something coming from the residence. That is when she was found.

The parents are up in arms that the police didn't break every law on the book to look for their little girl, and the community is wondering where the communications breakdown occurred. (at least by the police.)

Had the people of the community informed the police that there was some arrests made at the residence previously, they could have made it enough for a search warrent for the residence, and maybe made a difference.

I too am saddened over the loss of such a innocent child to such a vile creature, but if the current laws on the books are not enough for the law enforcement to do their job, and the people in the community wish to ignore the Constitution, then the real problems will begin to surface and there will be no rights for the kids who are still alive.

I'd rather fix the problem at hand, and save a child further down the line, than trample the current laws on the books "for the children" and lose so much more.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Perhaps they had no knowledge of the perp's background.

[Maigrey]

The side issue here, and I am not discounting what you wrote, is that the person who was eventually arrested and charged for her death did not live there any more. (He had moved almost 6 months prior.) so the issue of "what is reasonable" is thrown out. I'd rather keep the matter a strict intpretation and follow the laws that are on the books than have some officer try and decide what is reasonable.

I would have prefered the people who lived within sight of the residence said, "Hey, there was a guy who used to live there who was arrested for keeping a child there." This could be the reasonable evidence for a search of the property. Alas, this was never the case, and the police had to use the methods they had.