Tuesday, July 1, 2008

I wonder how this case will play out?

Youth pastor's house searched without warrant.

The youth pastor already pleaded guilty to 9 counts of voyeurism and resigned from his church. His house sitter let the police in. She claimed the tapes she found, presumably of her daughter and other young girls, taking a shower, were videotaped by him.

How were they videotaped? It's difficult to videotape shower scenes in stealth. The steam can easily put the camera out of commission. He must have been really dedicated and invested in some spy ware.

Did the youth pastor have a habit of inviting underage girls into his house to take showers? What evidence do we have that the house keeper, in fact, did not videotape her daughter, and others, in order to plant the evidence? Hey, any time things are done 'without a warrant', it begs these kind of questions.

If the police overlooked a warrant in a frame up, how do we know the police overlooked other matters in some cases that might be legitimate? Selectively ignoring things like 'warrants' makes it difficult for other legitimate complaints to be heard.

Those engaged in child exploitation must be severely dealt with, but prosecution must adhere to the letter of the law in executing their justice. Any time I read about the police engaging in searches 'without a warrant', I tend to become a bit concerned.

No comments: