justintheharris
Well-Known Member
I want to see him cry at sentencing. Originally I said 5 years minimum but now I’m betting on at least 10-15 years
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Man Accused of Stealing Buzzy's Clothing from Disney World Arrested
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
bsiev1977
Well-Known Member
Yeah. The value of the items stolen puts him way into felony territory.
if his trial was streamed online somehow, I’d skip work to watch his sentencing live
. Not that one exists but still lol
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
I agree it sounds very fishy the club 33 CPA and an NBA player didnt know these items were stolen.
Maybe because of their high stature, they're being given an incredible benefit of the doubt.
But they started working with Law Enforcement back in April and there doesn't seem to be any charges brought against them yet.
Doesn't necessarily prove their innocence, but it appears it be hard to prove they knowingly bought stolen goods. And it appears they've handed over everything purchased.
drew81
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
justintheharris
Well-Known Member
I found it interesting that Finley already has an attorney. I wonder if Spikes will eventually start talking about them when he realizes he’s done.
Bleed0range
Well-Known Member
I seriously doubt they’re going to go after anyone who purchased the items who are playing ball to help get him convicted and return the items. Especially if that person is an NBA player.
Also, I had said many times this guy was guilty and probably behind Buzzy. More and more it’s becoming clear he is behind all of this theft. Those videos were great btw. Haha. He’s so guilty and it’s so obvious. The moment they said “Do you have a cellphone?” you could visibly see the panic set in his face.
I am not convinced we will ever find out what happened to Buzzy though. He may have sold it or has it in his possession hidden somewhere still like a body of his murderer victim. We’re gonna find Buzzy in a shallow grave somewhere one day. Trying to bury the evidence.
Now that we're sure Spirit's never coming back, are you going to tag TP in every thread from now on?
VicariousCorpse
Well-Known Member
Why is that interesting. The moment the police want to talk to you about anything you should get an attorney. Specially if you are well off and can afford it. Innocent people can get convicted too.
Very true. Too many people say only the guilty get a lawyer. However, look at the number of people who are convicted of lying to investigators but no other crime. Lawyers are critical in making sure the answers you provide are exactly what you believed they were and they were the truth. The legal system stinks and there are too many people in jail for stupid things. Always have a lawyer when speaking to the police and never agree to them searching your car or home without a search warrant.
flynnibus
Premium Member
They suckered him in... they played it as if they weren't looking to question him in the stuff.. but wanted to talk to see if he had anything that could help them. Remember, they had spoken previously as well. Spikes was probably thinking 'helping them' will help take the heat off himself. But they were smarter than him... they lured him in and in turn brought the evidence they wanted TO them.. without even having to fight to work out how to get a warrant to find the phone in the first place.
The one angle I'm really curious if an attorney could play off of is.. by the police demanding he put his phone on the table to start.. does that equate to the phone being found by involuntary search? But I think they might say... he had the phone out in the open to begin with (as he was using it).. so it was 'in plain sight' and as such there was no search... only a seizure at that point of something that was already in plain sight.
justintheharris
Well-Known Member
I’m aware that innocent people often need lawyers. But Finley’s ignorance towards patrick’s activities make no sense to me.
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
Looked it up, If police have probable cause before a warrant, they can seize a phone until a warrant is issued.
screenshots of Texts w/ pics from his phone number of Buzzy's clothes is probable cause.
What's funny is I showed my daughter the video (she's 18, in college and has taken some courses that touch on law enforcement) she knew that as well.
This video is now one of her favorite Disney movies!
flynnibus
Premium Member
Of course.. but that's not the point in question. The point is you can't perform a search to --- locate things --- to seize except in very limited cases (normally around safety).
The police can seize a phone or evidence they know about and can see... but they can't go searching his person or private spaces for that phone without a warrant... even if they know that phone was involved in a crime.
They could not for instance... go out to his car and search the car looking for that phone. And as such, if that phone were say.. in his backpack or out of sight... they can't demand him to tell him about the phone being there and give it up.
The seizure of the phone is based on the idea of 'protecting evidence' -- that doesn't give them the right to go violating privacy to FIND that stuff first. And that's the hard part about getting the warrant to locate the phone... it needs to be specific on where you are searching. By luring Spikes to come to them (and who doesn't move around without their phone...) --- they completely skip over that problem and the evidence they are looking for is brought right to them and then placed within their plain sight. Once they had the phone in hand... then they could use the probable cause they had from their snitch to get the warrant to search the phone itself.
Whole point is about finding the phone itself... not the search of the phone's contents.
My question was more about the specifics where the Police demand he release the phone from his person. That's like the police demanding you empty your pockets before you are being detained or arrested. They can't do that (except in very limited cases). But I think the difference here is Spikes stupidly has the phone out in the open... and gives the police reason enough to believe that phone, is the phone connected to the evidence they have (It's the phone associated with the number they know from the msgs). And of course, Spikes gives them more info in confirming the phone is his and no other ones
GhostlyGoofy
Well-Known Member
I was trying to find some info on this. Some sites I found said police can seize a phone if they believe it's involved in a crime, but can not search it until they have a warrant. Him also willingly putting it on the table, might make it "Plain View."
However if this was an illegal seizure I feel like his lawyer would have already played that card.
However if this was an illegal seizure I feel like his lawyer would have already played that card.
flynnibus
Premium Member
That's what I said... I never questioned their right to seize the phone they can plainly see.. as they already have information that suggests the phone has evidence relevant to the crime.
The point is how the phone is 'found'. It's not about the search OF the phone.. it's about the search FOR the phone. The idea that the officer required him to separate the phone from his private self is significant.
BUT... I think it's moot because Spikes had it out in plain sight first in front of the officers. But it's of interest in the progression of the case.. and POSSIBLE defenses from Spike's lawyer since the data found on the phone was such a keystone to everything else. If the way the phone was acquired was invalidated.. then all the evidence they found on it would also be thrown out. So it's a 'valuable' point in it all.