Man Accused of Stealing Buzzy's Clothing from Disney World Arrested

Dragonman

Dragonman

Well-Known Member
421751
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
vicariouscorpse said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

justintheharris

Well-Known Member
seascape said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m aware that innocent people often need lawyers. But Finley’s ignorance towards patrick’s activities make no sense to me.
 
GhostlyGoofy

GhostlyGoofy

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
R

RaveOnEd

Well-Known Member
GhostlyGoofy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

flynnibus

Premium Member
GhostlyGoofy said:
Looked it up, If police have probable cause before a warrant, they can seize a phone until a warrant is issued.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
GhostlyGoofy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GhostlyGoofy

GhostlyGoofy

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
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.
Click to expand...

He was a person of interest who willfully walked into a police Interogation and consented to bring his phone out when asked. He's paying an expensive law firm, if that were the case they probably would have gotten it dropped already.
 
Smiley/OCD

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Couldn't the police simply dial his number and when it rings in his pocket or backpack, they would have it?
 
Smiley/OCD

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
MotherOfBirds said:
That's a vintage meme, friend 10/10

Also, if someone would post the notices for his various depositions/hearings/etc, that would be great. I'm pretty sure that depos become public record unless the dependent is underage or they appeal to have it sealed, so feel free to post links.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so it's vintage...point? So is this thread, the poodle lady and Katiebug, but yet we still talk about them...
 
My95cobras

My95cobras

Well-Known Member
vicariouscorpse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you did it. But the cops can come speak to me about anything I have and search anything I have... I don’t commit crimes, so I don’t have anything to hide. I’ll talk to them all day long.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom