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

[tribbleorlfl]

Orlando jurors let Casey Anthony go. Anything is possible.

Technically, they were selected from Pinellas County and then sequestered here. There's no way she would have gotten a fair trial with a jury pool from the Orlando area.

Personally, I think Spikes' lawyers are simply going through the motions with a trial in an attempt to get additional charges dropped or thrown out (a strategy that's proven to be effective so far with the initial resisting arrest charge as well as the related tampering with evidence count). If they're unsuccessful, expect them to seek a plea deal or plea no contest on the eve of the trial. I think the evidence that's been released so far is damning enough to convince most reasonable people of his guilt, and I think his layers know that as well.

 

[ppete1975]

Technically, they were selected from Pinellas County and then sequestered here. There's no way she would have gotten a fair trial with a jury pool from the Orlando area.

Personally, I think Spikes' lawyers are simply going through the motions with a trial in an attempt to get additional charges dropped or thrown out (a strategy that's proven to be effective so far with the initial resisting arrest charge as well as the related tampering with evidence count). If they're unsuccessful, expect them to seek a plea deal or plea no contest on the eve of the trial. I think the evidence that's been released so far is damning enough to convince most reasonable people of his guilt, and I think his layers know that as well.

I think they are waiting for a good plea deal

 

[MisterPenguin]

Where is Buzzy

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BUZZY!!!

 

[Gringrinngghost]

Couldn't the police simply dial his number and when it rings in his pocket or backpack, they would have it?

They can simply subpoena the carrier for all relevant records.

 

[My95cobras]

They can simply subpoena the carrier for all relevant records.

But not the media contained on the device or content of messages.

 

[Bullseye1967]

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

I can tell you as a retired LEO that if you ask and the person complies then no privacy concerns come into play. If I ask a person if I can check their pockets and they say yes, then they have given consent. Besides the fact the phone was in plain sight, all they needed to do is ask if he had the phone with him to be able seize it. They already had probable cause to hold the phone for a warrant. If he had said no, and not had it in plain sight, it would have been a much different situation.
You would be amazed how many guilty people give you permission to search somewhere that may incriminate them. Mind if I look in your garage, so I can write in my report that you weren't involved? Do you care if I check your car real quick, so I can get you back on your way? You would be surprised what people agree to if you ask the right way.

 

[flynnibus]

I can tell you as a retired LEO that if you ask and the person complies then no privacy concerns come into play. If I ask a person if I can check their pockets and they say yes, then they have given consent. Besides the fact the phone was in plain sight, all they needed to do is ask if he had the phone with him to be able seize it. They already had probable cause to hold the phone for a warrant. If he had said no, and not had it in plain sight, it would have been a much different situation.

Thx for your input. Yeah, as you say at the end, it was in plain sight so I think it moot. But my question comes from the point where they ordered him (not asked him) to put the phone on the table and how that could play out otherwise. To me that was the point I was curious about.. If it's an instruction/order.. not a request.. and how the person understands that instruction.

For instance.. lets assume Spikes walks into the interview room (w/o phone in hand) and they say "Can you put your phone on the table?". Is that a request, or is that an order for him to comply with? If it's seen as an order... is that a search of his person? Or is that him voluntarily putting phone out there?

As we've all said in this particular case.. he's sitting there texting on his phone so its in plain view.. so then it's just about securing it. But I'm trying to distinquish how much of a mistake he made in having it out.. vs if he kept it on his person and out of sight would he have been able to keep it from being seized?

But he would have had to deny having it on them.. because given the progression we saw, I'd expect the police to simply ask him questions about his phone that would try to lure him into revealing it.

Based on your experience and what you saw... Do you think this meeting was all about securing that phone from the start?

 

[Kobe!!]

Why were these videos released?

 

[flynnibus]

Why were these videos released?

Freedom of Information Act Requests from Media outlets

 

[Gringrinngghost]

But not the media contained on the device or content of messages.

I was talking in the context of searching for the phones physical location.

The media and the content of the messages fall under a search warrant which has to be approved by a judge or magistrate.

 

[RaveOnEd]

Why were these videos released?

Because they're fun to watch. It's nice seeing an arrogant person get called out on his stupidity in a major way, to see karma in action.

 

[NoFunInBand]

You would be amazed how many guilty people give you permission to search somewhere that may incriminate them. Mind if I look in your garage, so I can write in my report that you weren't involved? Do you care if I check your car real quick, so I can get you back on your way? You would be surprised what people agree to if you ask the right way.

I took a digital forensics class in college and the professor could not stress enough to always just ask the suspect what their password is. Because more often than not they'll just... tell you. Even if there's, let's say, really really bad stuff on there. Kinda weird how that is.

 

[My95cobras]

Thx for your input. Yeah, as you say at the end, it was in plain sight so I think it moot. But my question comes from the point where they ordered him (not asked him) to put the phone on the table and how that could play out otherwise. To me that was the point I was curious about.. If it's an instruction/order.. not a request.. and how the person understands that instruction.

For instance.. lets assume Spikes walks into the interview room (w/o phone in hand) and they say "Can you put your phone on the table?". Is that a request, or is that an order for him to comply with? If it's seen as an order... is that a search of his person? Or is that him voluntarily putting phone out there?

As we've all said in this particular case.. he's sitting there texting on his phone so its in plain view.. so then it's just about securing it. But I'm trying to distinquish how much of a mistake he made in having it out.. vs if he kept it on his person and out of sight would he have been able to keep it from being seized?

But he would have had to deny having it on them.. because given the progression we saw, I'd expect the police to simply ask him questions about his phone that would try to lure him into revealing it.

Based on your experience and what you saw... Do you think this meeting was all about securing that phone from the start?

I believe that was a part of it, but interviewing has many angles. If you go in looking to only accomplish one thing and only one angle, you won’t get far.

Like an attorney, know the answers to the questions before you ask them.

I have another question. What did they do with the car? They said leave the car where it is... where was it?

 

[OrlandoRising]

Where is Buzzy

Still stolen, still not recovered.

 

[RaveOnEd]

I believe that was a part of it, but interviewing has many angles. If you go in looking to only accomplish one thing and only one angle, you won’t get far.

Like an attorney, know the answers to the questions before you ask them.

I have another question. What did they do with the car? They said leave the car where it is... where was it?

He probably drove it there and it's parked outside the station.

 

[THE 1HAPPY HAUNT]

but it will be easier to convey that storyline than the arrogant and entitled attitude of Spikes we all saw play out online.

No it won't. The interogation video speaks volumes about his characther.

 

[GhostlyGoofy]

Still stolen, still not recovered.

With your FOIA request can you say if you spotted anything further regarding Buzzy's whereabouts?

 

[Bullseye1967]

Thx for your input. Yeah, as you say at the end, it was in plain sight so I think it moot. But my question comes from the point where they ordered him (not asked him) to put the phone on the table and how that could play out otherwise. To me that was the point I was curious about.. If it's an instruction/order.. not a request.. and how the person understands that instruction.

For instance.. lets assume Spikes walks into the interview room (w/o phone in hand) and they say "Can you put your phone on the table?". Is that a request, or is that an order for him to comply with? If it's seen as an order... is that a search of his person? Or is that him voluntarily putting phone out there?

As we've all said in this particular case.. he's sitting there texting on his phone so its in plain view.. so then it's just about securing it. But I'm trying to distinquish how much of a mistake he made in having it out.. vs if he kept it on his person and out of sight would he have been able to keep it from being seized?

But he would have had to deny having it on them.. because given the progression we saw, I'd expect the police to simply ask him questions about his phone that would try to lure him into revealing it.

Based on your experience and what you saw... Do you think this meeting was all about securing that phone from the start?

I have no doubt the interview was 80% or greater about getting his phone. The other 20% was just seeing what they could get out of him. Getting the phone was the next logical step in the investigation. Chances were very high he would have it with him.

Answering your other question, If he denied having the phone on his person, they could not legally have taken it from him. But if they suspected he did have it, the next step would be to advise him that lying to the police can result in him being charged with obstruction among other things. The idea about calling the phone to see if it rings in his pocket is absolutely legal. A traffic stop after he left the station for some minor infraction and the officer routinely checking him for weapons would probably been the step after that. One way or another I have no doubt they were going to get that phone,

 

[OrlandoRising]

With your FOIA request can you say if you spotted anything further regarding Buzzy's whereabouts?

Other than further confirmation that the AA was stolen, no. OCSO's statement remains the same: Buzzy has not been recovered and the theft investigation is still active.

If the police had information about Buzzy's whereabouts, they'd be using that in the investigation.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Brook and Robin Lopez didn't cancel their NBA Experience appearance.