The Baby Lisa Search Warrant

The latest news of the Baby Lisa Case has focused on the affidavit in support of the search warrant. The execution of a search warrant can prove to be one of the most critical steps in a criminal investigation. The evidence seized, the manner in which it was seized and the analysis of that evidence may be the difference between acquittal and conviction.

Our founding fathers understood the intrusiveness of a search and established rules for obtaining a search warrant. The fourth amendment of our Constitution reads, “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.”

The affidavit submitted to obtain a search warrant of the Irwin residence highlighted important information. I found the following two facts to be the most compelling:
- A cadaver dog “indicated a positive ‘hit’ for the scent of a deceased human…”
- “…dirt having an appearance of being recently disturbed or overturned.”

These two statements, while not conclusive, lead a reasonable person to believe, when considering all the facts in toto, that there was probable cause to believe a body may be found.

That is sad and difficult to confront. However, we should not be surprised. The police activities have clearly reflected their focus on recovering a body. Though the implications of these statements are obvious, I was a little surprised that these two facts were limited to a few sentences at the end of the affidavit.

The first step any defense attorney takes is to quash the search warrant, thus disallowing any evidence seized during the search to be admitted in to trial. This approach is usually based on showing a defect in the warrant, often citing a lack of probable cause. Accordingly an affidavit must be as specific and compelling as possible to ward off any future attack by a defense attorney.

This search warrant did contain some generalities that I felt could have been presented in more detail and specificity. For example, one paragraph discussed three cell phones that were missing and were not located. The affidavit made no mention of why they suspected the cell phones would be found in the house. There was no mention of any other attempt to locate the phones (e.g. through the cell phone company). The significance of these phones in establishing probable cause could have been explained in more detail.

The police also do not want to be overly specific in the affidavit. That too can lead to challenges that may result in the search warrant being quashed and the evidence not admitted.

The primary goal of the search is to find Baby Lisa, hopefully alive. Yet, the police cannot ignore the importance of the prosecution should this sadly become a homicide. Then, the eyes of the nation will be upon them. As of now, everything the police have done has moved them in the right direction.
1 like ·   •  53 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 22, 2011 08:08
Comments Showing 51-53 of 53 (53 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 51: by Michael (new)

Michael Tabman Hello. Thanks for continuing the conversation.

The reports of this man carrying a baby are very interesting. The first report came out early after the incident and I recall hearing that the police ruled this out, though I do not know why. Now, the police are re-interviewing that witness. As for the second sighting, I have not heard that it was described as Jeremy. On camera, the witness appeared credible. The descriptions not matching is not, in my opinion, a big issue. Recall of those details, in those circumstances is not very reliable. The good news is that the police are pursuing those leads. While they have obviously focused on mom, they are not getting trapped in tunnel vision.

Earlier, I discussed that infant abductions are often carried out by women of child-bearing age who have had a traumatic loss in this regard. At times, a male was involved to accommodate the female. So, this scenario cannot be ruled out. And, as we discussed, these females did not intend to harm the baby. Any reason to remain hopeful.... Thanks, Michael


message 52: by Irisheyes (new)

Irisheyes Michael,
I agree, the eyewitnesses not matching does, to me discredit the witness. Do you not feel it is not an issue because eye witness testimony is not reliable anyways? It appears according to the press that there are mulitple sightings,multiple people calling in tips and sightings to LE. Why discount the other sightings? 800 of them and focus on just these 3?
Proximity? Also, the stats that go along with abducted babies are usually women. This single statistic in itself would put the sightings at least, at a minimum at a disadvantaged and unreliable sighting or eye witness. This gentleman, with the 4:00am sighting, reported a week later.
I believe LE is working very hard, but I also believe that LE has more than they have shared with the public. Yes, LE is proving to be exhausting all tips, sightings, and leads. Not a big fan of posting on a public site, but I like your site Michael. Thanks for sticking with the facts with such a widely publicised case....and giving your professional opinion.

Irisheyes


message 53: by Michael (new)

Michael Tabman Irisheyes wrote: "Michael,
I agree, the eyewitnesses not matching does, to me discredit the witness. Do you not feel it is not an issue because eye witness testimony is not reliable anyways? It appears according ..."


Sorry, I am out on business travel. I will try to stay caught up and let's keep the conversation going.
Thanks, Michael


« previous 1 2 next »
back to top

Crime Scene

Michael Tabman
Ex-cop, retired FBI Agent and author.

Michael's books and Crime Scene Blog can be found at michaeltabman.com

Follow Michael on Twitter: @MichaelTabman
...more
Follow Michael Tabman's blog with rss.