You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.
"This coming from the man with the YOU EAT COCK in his signature." (StaggerLee)
Prosecutors in Tampa have dropped all child porn charges (cnn.com) against R. Kelly. He still faces charges in Chicago, but after the photos were suppressed as evidence, Tampa had to drop their charges. They were suppressed because they popped up while cops were searching his place on suspected drug charges.
DEAN's Nuggets of Wisdom:
"A-Train could wear a Vampirella outfit and I would toast a load to it."
I don't see how this makes him any more lucky then O.J. or any other supposed criminal but the guys lucky that his audience didn't give a damn about his legal troubles. On top of this he is coming out with his second or third album since the whole tape incident and is as popular as he ever was in the past.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, let me get this straight, the cops werent LOOKING for the photos, and found them. The judge calls them inadmissable because the cops weren't there to look for them.
This is the part I really dont get:
Originally posted by CNN.comKelly's attorneys said the affidavit Mateo submitted in seeking the warrant wasn't adequate because it was based on unspecified information from Chicago authorities and no link was established between the discovery of marijuana and the presence of cameras and child pornography.
So they showed up looking for drugs with a search warrant giving them permission to look for drugs. While they were poking around for drugs they found some other stuff that gave them the impression there might be some other illegal activity going on. So they went back to the judge to obtain a search warrant giving them permission to specifically look for said illegal activity, went back to Kelly's house to look for the specific illegal activity that their search warant gave them permission to look for and FOUND EVIDENCE OF SAID SPECIFIC ILLEGAL ACTIVITY! Why would they need to provide a link between the drugs and the kiddie porn??
Sorry if I got a little redundant there, this just doesnt make any sense to me.
Originally posted by PoorlyToldJokeHow would looking through the pictures on a camera pertain to a drug investigation?
It doesnt. Thats why the police went back for a 2nd search warrant for child porn. Remember that part in the article?
Originally posted by CNN.com
During an initial search for drugs, detective Robert Mateo said he observed video cameras and an "unusual" amount of adult pornography in a cabinet in a room marked "Private." The detective then sought a second search warrant to look for child pornography.
The next day, Mateo was granted the warrant by Polk Circuit Court Judge Mary Catherine Green. Mateo returned to Kelly's home and wrote in a report that he examined one of the video cameras and scanned the images, finding several pictures of two women performing sex acts and other photos of Kelly in a sex act.
In the context of baseball, the use of drugs hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, the use of alcohol hurts only the player. In the context of baseball, womanizing hurts whom? Maybe the wife of the player? In the context of baseball, felonies are crimes against society, not against baseball. In the context of baseball, gambling is the only crime against baseball.
Gambling, in the context of baseball, is a capital offense and Rose has richly earned-- hell, he agreed to-- his death sentence. Let him hang.
Bob Kohm, co-owner of Rotojunkies.com (rotojunkies.com) , and a large market kind of guy.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, let me get this straight, the cops weren't LOOKING for the photos, and found them.
No. Just for the sake of clarification, the cops did NOT find the photos while looking for drugs. Had they, then the second search would no doubt have been found to have been reasonable. It's also worth mentioning that the incriminating photos were not found in the cabinet containing the "unusual" amount of adult pornography, nor were they found in the video cameras that detective Robert Mateo said he observed and used as the basis of requesting the second search warrant.
Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreezeWhile they were poking around for drugs they found some other stuff that gave them the impression there might be some other illegal activity going on.
Detective Robert Mateo said he observed video cameras and an "unusual" amount of adult pornography. As Whitebacon has already noted, the article does specify exactly what was meant by an "unusual" amount. Did the detective mean that R. Kelly had an unusually small amount of pornography for a healthy adult male and therefore must have some kiddy porn stashed somewhere in the house? After all, to say that you searched a house, found some old "Playboys" and a video camera and therefore concluded that there must be illegal activity going on is not a valid basis for obtaining a search warrant. Indeed, it's unlikely that a warrant would have been issued if that's all the detective had, because it would clearly have been found to have been inadequate grounds. However, the detective also had the information that R. Kelly was facing child pornography charges in Chicago. Adding that to the mix was enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant. But
Originally posted by CNNthe affidavit Mateo submitted in seeking the warrant wasn't adequate because it was based on unspecified information from Chicago authorities.
So a circuit judge disagreed with the judge who issued the warrant. Now, I'm not an attorney, but I feel the fact that
Originally posted by CNNProsecutors decided not to appeal the ruling by Circuit Judge Dennis Maloney, choosing instead to abandon the charges.
means that the prosecuting attorneys tend to agree with the circuit judge's ruling.
The bottom line is that the detectives did not find the drugs they were searching for, they did not come across the photos while searching for drugs, nor did they find some other stuff that would give a reasonable person the impression that there might be some other illegal activity going on. On that basis, I agree with the circuit judge's ruling, and I agree with the prosecutors' decision not to appeal the ruling.
(edited by Downtown Bookie on 21.3.04 0951) Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
Originally posted by CNN.comDuring an initial search for drugs, detective Robert Mateo said he observed video cameras and an "unusual" amount of adult pornography in a cabinet in a room marked "Private."
I guess it would depend on what else they saw in this "private" room, or how big & full of porn the cabinet was, or how many cabinets like this there were in the room?
If I were that cop, and I was aware of the other charges Kelly was facing in Chicago, and I found what he found in Kelly's Florida house, I probably wouldve done/thought the same thing.
-Naming your thread "This is the _________ thread" is so tacky.
The one thing I don't understand is how they found porn on his digital camera if they were looking for drugs. What happened?
Cops: Mr Kelly, we have a warrant to search for illegal substances. Please open the door. R Kelly: Okay, come in. But while you're here, check THESE out. Aren't they cool? Cops: Uhhh...we'll be right back...
I'm guessing it's because neither of them pees on underage women and/or randomly freaks out onstage during a concert and accuses the audience of pointing guns at them. The problem isn't so much with R. Kelly having an attitude problem.