Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Drug charges dropped against festivalgoer

October 31, 2006

Advertisement

Because of a "problematic search" by law enforcement officers, drug charges have been dropped against a Massachusetts man arrested at this summer's Wakarusa Music and Camping Festival.

Kevin DeSisto, 35, of Peabody, Mass., claimed in a document filed last month in District Court that sheriff's deputies and Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents who searched his trailer did not have a warrant and did not ask for consent to search. Last week, DeSisto was due in court on three misdemeanor charges, including possession of ecstasy and possession of marijuana.

But Assistant Dist. Atty. David Melton moved to dismiss the charges, citing what he called a "problematic search."

Judge Michael Malone granted the motion and dismissed the case.

DeSisto wrote that it had been 60 hours between the time officers initially observed activity at the trailer and the time of the raid. He argued that was not a short enough time period to circumvent the requirement for a search warrant.

Comments

oldgoof 8 years, 1 month ago

my2cents:"This is a sign of a weak DA.....I'm not saying the cops did it right or wrong,"

Well, I am saying there is a big question here. And it stops before the DA in the process. A 60-hr wait for a search without a warrent is a big flashing yellow light, if not flashing red light in Crimininal Law 101 class. Somebody's supervisor in the police dept or KBI ought to have their competence and professional judgement examined.

my2cents 8 years, 1 month ago

This is a sign of a weak DA that fears going after those that have done wrong. Notice they never said it was illegal, just "problematic." If they go to court and it guy is found guilty, well then they did it right. If they go to court and the guy is found NOT guilty, well then they did it wrong. But I thought finding fault was on the behalf of the court, not on the behalf of the DA. The DA could have easily argued some well known case law surrounding searching movable structures (vehicles, trailers, etc.. ) I'm not saying the cops did it right or wrong, I don't know all the circumstances, but geez, if they would have gone to trial it would have been on record.

Confrontation 8 years, 1 month ago

"Law enforcement has NO respect for the law."

What about this idiot? Kevin has NO respect for the law.

Linda Endicott 8 years, 1 month ago

The worrisome point in this article is that it appears that if it had been somewhere less than 60 hours, searching the trailer without permission and without a search warrant would have been okay?

I don't like the sound of that at all.

my2cents 8 years, 1 month ago

Well "I am" --- Considering there are no facts about the incident stated in this story behind not getting a search warrant you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

The Suspect or Law Breaker (<< I learned that in Criminal Law 101) stated in his brief there was a 60-hr wait.

Maybe there was or wasn't. Of course the LJ World wouldn't print the Cops side of the story. IT NEVER DOES. They wouldn't be living up to there name as a liberal newspaper.

I was saying let it go to court and if the police messed up it would be on the record, and if they didn't it would be on the record.


"Somebody's supervisor in the police dept "

Oh yeah....the police dept wasn't involved in this situation. It was the Sheriff's Office and KBI.

don_burgess 8 years, 1 month ago

My2cents says:

"sign of a weak DA that fears going after those that have done wrong"


Don't you mean - "a weak DA that fears going after thoes that are in possession of illegal subtances." ???

Laws change everyday. Right and wrong are relative. <>

Many people who contribute blogs to this "liberal newspaper" think there is nothing "wrong" with possession of ecstasy and possession of marijuana.

..........-Right ,Mr Ramirez?

Kelly Powell 8 years, 1 month ago

Maybe it is time for decrimminalization of the less obnoxious drugs.....And not because i want to do them(those days are long gone)but that it seems futile to keep fighting a losing battle and to not try differant tactics.

justanotherperson 8 years, 1 month ago

Officers take an oath to uphold the constitution, as does the DA, who should dismiss this without waiting for the judge to do so if he sees it was illegal. Officers should not just intentionally violate the 4th amendment in the hopes that it will be overlooked, or because they don't plan on arresting the person if they find something. ( like searching cars without consent then being "nice" by letting violators go even when they find something) Their job is Not to get the criminals no matter what. It is to act WITHIN the law, and sometimes they cannot legally do what seems to be an easy way to find evidence of criminal conduct- like make an illegal stop or search. We need to support those officers who appreciate the value of these limits to our system of law enforcement, and not scream "technicality" when someone "gets off" because of a failure to respect constitutional limits, which protect us all. I once saw a cop in court being asked by the defense attorney, "isn't it true your job is to objectively investigate crimes?". They looked at the prosecutor like, "is this a trick question?" In case you didn't know, the answer is YES.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.