Aug 302010
 
 August 30, 2010  Court, Surveillance

Dan Shortridge reports:

When state police searched Earl B. Bradley’s office complex in December, they found what appeared to be unimpeachable evidence — video files reportedly showing the pediatrician sexually abusing or raping his child patients.

But his defense team claims police didn’t have permission to search the building where the evidence was found, and are arguing that the most explicit proof that Bradley committed the horrific crimes of which he is accused should be tossed out. They say the search warrant gave permission to search only a white outbuilding, not a “checkerboard building” also on the property where some video files were found.

Though it’s difficult to get evidence suppressed based on problems with a search warrant, the number of outbuildings on Bradley’s property could present significant hurdles for the prosecution, said Judith Ritter, a law professor at Widener University School of Law.

Read more on Delaware Online.

This is one of those cases where you’d hate to see someone get off because of a faulty warrant, but by the same token, if you believe in the protections of the Fourth Amendment and want to keep law enforcement “honest,” you may feel obligated to agree with defense counsel that the evidence should be excluded.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.