wtf!

[simon]

whats up with the police in the USA,just watch this Tv progrmme and a pedo that abducted 2 boys and had one of them for over 4 years!!! the police find his car and ask can they serch his car and house because it matches the details they have,the ploice said he started to act weird when ask to search his house and said no! so what do the police do,they just go away and ask him again the next day and only then after hours of asking him does he then give consent for them to look in his house,they then find the 2 boys alive,the pedo could just have easily gone and killed the boys that night,just amazing!:mad:

[James]

Unfortunatly, some Judge must have decided that the evidence didnt warrant a search warrant. The rights of the suspect cannot be tread on no matter what they think it has to conform to the law. If they hed busted in without a warrant or permission the suspect would have gone free as none of the evidence would be admissible in court, James ps be careful what rights you are willing to give up

[simon]

they didn't even ask for a warrant,they said it was late so they would ask the next day!

the boy that saw the van drive off with the abducted boy gave a very detailed discription of the van,guess what the police do....give the boy a lie test:eek:

when you can get arrested in the US just by someone saying you have committed a crime,and maybe be in jail for a day or 2,it's a bit off that the police didn't go to the bother to get a warrant!

[jbrowder24]

I am wondering if you missed any parts about them having to go get a warrant? I believe police can break in without one if they believe someone's life is in immediate danger or something, but otherwise police need a warrant to search homes unless they get permission. This is in large part due to privacy laws in the US, which have roots in the Constitution. The specific amendment states, "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."

Without having seen the program, perhaps the police did goof if they suspected the boys were in the home... but if they had no reason to suspect the boys were alive or in that particular home, then they had to go get a warrant (most likely... cases may differ and it's hard to say on this without knowing more).

[jbrowder24]

they didn't even ask for a warrant,they said it was late so they would ask the next day!

the boy that saw the van drive off with the abducted boy gave a very detailed discription of the van,guess what the police do....give the boy a lie test:eek:

Okay I posted my other response before I saw this. It'd probably have been difficult to get to a judge at that hour though they should have still tried if it was an emergency. Perhaps they didn't give much credit to what the other boy saw because of his age, which is a shame if so.

when you can get arrested in the US just by someone saying you have committed a crime,and maybe be in jail for a day or 2,it's a bit off that the police didn't go to the bother to get a warrant!

Where did you hear this? If this happened, then it was against the law. People don't just get thrown into jail based on someone's word (though there have been wrongly convicted people in trial unfortunately; as may happen in your country as well, can't say I'm too familiar with the UK courts and how they differ if much at all).

[simon]

Okay I posted my other response before I saw this. It'd probably have been difficult to get to a judge at that hour though they should have still tried if it was an emergency. Perhaps they didn't give much credit to what the other boy saw because of his age, which is a shame if so.

Where did you hear this? If this happened, then it was against the law. People don't just get thrown into jail based on someone's word (though there have been wrongly convicted people in trial unfortunately; as may happen in your country as well, can't say I'm too familiar with the UK courts and how they differ if much at all).

yeah its hard to comment when you haven't watch the show but trust me it was so maddening:mad:

they thought it was important enough to go to his work the next day and ask again,here in that situation the police would not just go home for the night and "try" again they would take you to a judge there and then!

I think the American constitution needs to be looked at again,it's like the bible written for the age back then and not as the world is now.

I'm beleive if someone were to accuse you of a crime then the people would arrest you? ok I'm just going from talk shows etc but it does seem less evidence is needed to be arrested than over here.

[jbrowder24]

Hmmm perhaps it is less evidence here, I'm not sure. There definitely have been some injustices, but it's not like I can just call up the police about a neighbor I don't like and make up some lie about them dealing drugs or something.

Agreed on the comment on the Constitution. Many great principles but the world is far more globalized today and technology far more advanced.

[simon]

Hmmm perhaps it is less evidence here, I'm not sure. There definitely have been some injustices, but it's not like I can just call up the police about a neighbor I don't like and make up some lie about them dealing drugs or something.

well thats good to know,maybe I won't put off my next trip.

Judge judy is not the best source of info :redface:,but the amount of times you hear "I got him arrested" for saying he hit me etc

[simon]

I think the main differences are,in the UK to be arrested you need a lot of evidence,but I beleive in the US they arrest first then bail you,then look for the evidence.

[fredv3b]

I certainly wouldn't want my home searched without my consent just because it matched something that someone told them and the police thought my behaviour was 'weird'.