A case for curtailing rights

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

[Maigrey]

Wrong! They didn't have the reasonable evidence at the time to search the property, and didn't discover her remains until 2 days later when the caretaker of the property came and found her.

The issue here is why there was no search warrent issued for the residence, if there were prior arrests made there? The police made a reasonable effort immediately to find the child, and did not have the information at the time that the residence was vacant. Time was of the essence, and they went to search other residences and areas.

And, if you read the article at all, you would have read that the writer of the article was espousing trampling the 4th amendment because it's "for the children." This is a horrible reason for breaking the laws that are on the books.

[ccmay]

You are all missing the obvious lesson of this case.

This man should have been executed the first time he kidnapped a child. Or the second time.

Failing that, the decent citizens on his street should have formed a committee of vigilance, sworn themselves to secrecy, and shot him dead on a suitable night.

-ccm

[dirtboy]

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.

I bet tomorrow this guy will be writing a column critical of the Patriot Act and will be completely oblivious of the irony.

[Maigrey]

Oh, believe you me, I see the point, and had it been a child I knew, the perp wouldn't be sitting in 201 Poplar (the local lock-up) on suicide watch.

The locals here are more interested in "what's for the children" rather than protecting them.

[chudogg]

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

Im confused, the article states that the predator used to live in that same house. Does that mean someone else is living there, or is it vacant? If its vacant then the police dont have to worry about probably cause. If someone else is living there, the circumstances and past history should have been enough to get warrant nevermind probable cause.

I think the real gripe should not be against the law, but the law enforcers. It looks like the police knocked on the door, got no answer, filed the necessary paperwork, and then left to get more donuts.

And i guarantee that this whiney liberal is the type of person who thinks prisoners ought to be "Rehabilitated". With this mans past history, he should have been behind bars, or an institution with no hope of getting out of. Some people cannot be "rehabilitated"

[Maigrey]

The perp lived there until 6 months prior, and the residence was occupied until 1 month before. The question arose in that the residence was maintained, and the police erred on the side of caution. This is one time where their caution was not followed-up on.

I think that the police should be able to access the public records of the residences (and it's also in downtown, about 2 blocks away, and 2 blocks from the courthouse!) and be able to streamline the investigations to getting a search warrent.

Sadly, the local politicians will scream for more laws on the books rather than evaluate and repair the ones currently enforced.

And I guarantee that this whiney liberal is the type of person who thinks prisoners ought to be "Rehabilitated". With this mans past history, he should have been behind bars, or an institution with no hope of getting out of. Some people cannot be "rehabilitated"

Ditto!

[Imal]

Um, I think you meant to respond to someone else's post. Either that, or you really misread mine.

[BlackbirdSST]

If someone else is living there, the circumstances and past history should have been enough to get warrant nevermind probable cause.

First, it takes the probable cause to obtain the warrant. 2nd, if the perp from 6 months ago doesn't still reside in the house in question, you assume anyone else that takes up residence in this house is suspicious? That's downright bizzare! You occupy this dwelling so you must be guilty! Beam me up! Blackbird.

[chudogg]

The girl disappeared right in front of the house and the house was used on two prior occasions as a place two abduct girls by the perpetrator. The police should have checked the area even if anyone else took up residence (which no one did). That doesn't mean they are guilty. Searching an area and proclaiming guilt are two very different things.

The police could have checked the area with probably cause (i.e. without warrant) or could have streamlined a warrant to check the area (as any Judge would do).

My point was that current laws need to be enforced, privacy protection laws do not need to be curtailed.

[William Tell]

This sounds like the joke about the guy that was looking for his wallet under a lamp post. An onlooker asked "Is this where you lost it?" and he says "No, but the light is better over here."

Property owners pay taxes. Tax bills are sent to the owners and not necessarily to the property. The local tax assessor can identify the owner quickly from the address. Not asking the owner for permission to search, which in this case the owner would probably have granted, is negligence.

If I lost a small child, I would want to know that she was not at the bottom of any neighbor's swimming pool immediately, while there might still be time to resuscitate her. If I had been the parent in this case, I would have been conducting my own search independent of the police. And they probably wouldn't like it.

If a law-abiding homeowner simply told me to beat it, that the kid was not there, that is one thing. But to ignore a house for three days is incompetence on the part of the police and the parents.

[Maigrey]

After a 10 days in limbo, The (Memphis) Commerical Appeal finally printed my letter. (I found it online, and not in print.) Here's the cleaned up version of the letter.

Protect the Fourth Amendment

In regards to David Waters's Sept. 3 Faith Matters column ("A case for curtailing rights"), I find his reactions to the death of Tyra Knox over the top and a little out of line with current laws.

(The body of 7-year-old Tyra was discovered in an empty house across the street from the child's Frayser home on Aug. 25, two days after she disappeared while playing on the sidewalk. A former neighbor has been charged with first-degree murder in Tyra's death.)

Last time I checked, there is little issue with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment: "The 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 Fourth 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, 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 this death will not be in vain.

(Maigrey)
Memphis