This case shows why the Texas Exclusionary Rule, which strangely covers searches conducted by private citizens, is out of whack and should be amended, limiting it to the actions of police:

A Texas judge dealt a major blow Tuesday to the case against a man accused of filming late-night "fight club" bouts at a state facility for the developmentally disabled, ruling that videos of them could not be used at trial.

State District Judge Sandra Watts granted former employee Timothy Dixon's motion to suppress the cell phone on the grounds that it was essentially stolen property, and delayed his trial until prosecutors can appeal.

Details.

Not a popular choice, but a choice existed! Nevertheless, perhaps the issue is best settled pre-trial. Another argument for acceptance of inevitable discovery?

It also strikes me that perhaps Jenschke v. S., 147 S.W.3d 398 (CCA 2004), bears on this issue.

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 07-07-09 at .]

It seems like calling the person's taking the IPOD illegal is a stretch...I don't think you could make a theft case with it. If the store where it was found had picked it up and placed it in a lost and found bin, with no intent to try to find the owner, would they be guilty of theft? If someone finds 20 bucks on the ground of a sidewalk and puts it in their pocket without attempting to see who it belongs to, is it theft if the finder can't prove the person dropped it on purpose? If a person put some valuable property in their trash, and someone else came along and decided it was their new treasure, didn't knock on the door to ask if the person really meant to throw it out--which they didn't, is that theft?

And what greater public policy is being protected by this nonsense?

Absolutely none.

My guess is that the appellate courts will write in an exception for lost or abandoned property found by another. So, we will continue writing around a bad rule.

They probably didn't believe he just "found" it.

This is exactly the type of case that should get our legislators' attention. No public policy exists for the current Texas rule that would exclude that evidence.

Policy consideration might be a reduction of vigilante justice.

Alex-- can you really think of a situation in which a regular citizen (not a law enforcement officer) considered the finer points of a code of criminal procedure that they have probably never heard of, much less read, and decided against vigilantism because they actually realize the evidence would NOT be used? You quote statutes and cases in the forums, I assume because you're interested and you read them. However, you are most certainly an exception. I understand people are expected to know the law, and what they can and can't legally do, but frankly, I don't expect that most lay people immediately know or understand procedural consequences (as opposed to knowing or understanding penal codes and consequences of committing a crime).

Oh I was just brainstorming for a policy justification.

The policy justification for the exclusionary rule presumes that law enforcement officers will sometimes themselves violate one law while they are busy enforcing another law... so if you take that as your starting premise you can imagine a lot of things!

The policy is simple; the constitution limits governmental action such as police officers violating the law to acheive an end. We can educate and regulate on that, and do so with an exclusionary rule that law enforcement understands an appreciates.

There is no benefit to society to attempt regulate a private person's conduct unrelated to governmental action with a rule designed to enforce a constitutional provision.

It appears that our standards are just a little higher here in Texas and we just don�t want any old criminal solving crime.

OTH, if the concern is that law enforcement might utilize private citizens to skirt the 4th amendment, current 4th amendment jurisprudence already addresses that without Texas resorting to a special rule.

Judge will allow fight club videos in trial

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A state disrict judge will admit into evidence cellphone videos of abuse at a state facility for the developmentally disabled.

The videos will be used in the Corpus Christi trial of one of six former employees charged in the case.

Nueces County state District Judge Sandra Watts has ruled earlier this month that the cellphone and its videos would be inadmissible because they were essentially stolen property.

Now, KRIS-TV in Corpus Christi reports Watts reconsidered her ruling after prosecutors argued that former Corpus Christi State School employee Timothy Dixon didn't own the phone.

The videos were considered prosecutors best evidence in the case looking into late-night fights between Corpus Christi State School residents. The fights allegedly were orchestrated by the facility's staff for their own entertainment.


Link.

Psych!

Denton County has been live with Odyssey Hot Checks for more than two years.

Denton County went live with the Odyssey Civil only package of Odyssey in May, 2009. Over 100 issues were opened before and during the go-live process. However, Tyler was able to resolve all of the high priority issues fairly quick by the go-live team. Currently we have less than ten lower priority issues remaining which are being handled by Tyler's transition team. The transition team follows the go-live team once the software package is installed to complete any open issues and begin the maintenance and operations.

Denton County's next step (Phase 2) is the Odyssey Justice of the Peace package. The SMEs, subject matter experts, are currently completing the coding configuration for Odyssey JP. That is followed by the code mapping (from TSG Legacy to Odyssey) and testing to ensure the data is correct. The JP's SMEs are short handed but moving forward and making progress. Tyler would prefer that Denton be ready to go live in November (very aggressive schedule).

Odyssey Phase 3 will be the ICJ, integrated criminal justice package. The ICJ package includes Law Enforcement, Jail, Prosecutor, Supervision, etc. It is anticipated for second or third quarter of 2010.

As things get closer we will try keep you posted!

Thank you,
Stephen R.

Anybody ever try to reconcile a rule (exclusionary rule) that hides reliable evidence from the finder of fact, at a trial where the goal is to find the truth? Wasn't it Bivens where the Supremes came within a single vote of tossing the exclusionary rule? I get that we don't want law enforcement violating our rights, but how can we expect the average street cop or even detective, much less ordinary citizen to understand all the rules when seasoned prosecutors can differ on whether a particular piece of evidence is acquired lawfully or not? The whole thing has gone far past absurd!!