Nassau Police & The Rule of Law

[on the tit]

Nassau Police & The Rule of Law

Why would a seasoned homicide detective continue to question a suspect in custody, ON FRIGGIN VIDEO, after the suspect invoked his right to remain silent?

What the hell is wrong with these guys? Are they clueless or is that they don't give a fuck about long standing Supreme Court rulings or suspect's civil rights?

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/judge-cop-can-t-tell-jury-of-arson-defendant-s-confession-1.1620263

A Nassau judge has ruled that the detective who interrogated quadruple murder suspect Caleb Lacey cannot tell a jury that Lacey confessed to the crime, meaning that the jury who decides Lacey's fate likely will never know about the confession, prosecutors said today.

Nassau Judge Jerald Carter had previously thrown out an eight hour videotape that prosecutors say shows him confessing to setting the fire that killed a Lawrence mother and three of her children, saying that the tape's sound quality was too poor to play for a jury.

Today, Carter ruled that the detective who took the confession, Carl Re, cannot testify about the confession because he did not stop questioning Lacey even after Lacey invoked his Fifth Amendment right during the interview. Re left the room briefly, then returned and continued questioning Lacey.

The only circumstances under which the jury might hear about the confession is if Lacey chooses to take the stand, in which case prosecutors would have the right to cross-examine him about his confession, Carter ruled.

Police did not take a written confession from Lacey.

Prosecutors say while the suppression of the confession is damaging, they have ample evidence to convict Lacey without it. It was prosecutor Michael Canty who first brought the court's attention to the fact that Lacey had invoked his Fifth Amendment right, and Canty did not object to the suppression of the confession.

"We have very strong evidence that points to the defendant's guilt and we look forward to presenting that to a jury," Canty said.

Lacey's attorney, Christopher Cassar of Huntington, said the suppression of the confession will hurt the prosecution's case.

"There are no eyewitness. There are no inculpatory statements. There is no scientific evidence. Their case is based on smoke and mirrors," Cassar said.

Police say Lacey, 20, a volunteer firefighter, doused his neighbor's staircase in gasoline, then lit it and drove to the Lawrence-Cedarhurst firehouse to await the 911 call. The Feb. 19 fire killed Morena Vanegas, 46; her son, Saul Preza, 19; and Morena and Edit Vanegas' two daughters, Andrea, 10, and Susanna, 9.

Lacey has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and arson charges.

[Thurgood Marshall]

Nassau Police & The Rule of Law


Surely you jest. Why would the police, of all people, be concerned about SC rulings?

[he'll be ok]

Nassau Police & The Rule of Law

Why would a seasoned homicide detective continue to question a suspect in custody, ON FRIGGIN VIDEO, after the suspect invoked his right to remain silent?

What the hell is wrong with these guys? Are they clueless or is that they don't give a fuck about long standing Supreme Court rulings or suspect's civil rights?


This really isn't a big deal. It's not like the detective is going to get hurt by this or have to give back the overtime he earned while violating this guy's rights.

[UnregisteredNYS1234]

Surely you jest. Why would the police, of all people, be concerned about SC rulings?

Please don't call me shirley

[UnregisteredSqd]

Hey kid, what are you a shit house lawyer? You've been watching to much tv.

Those court decisions ain't the real world. No go sit down, be quiet, and color.

[Don't Be A Hero]

On the Tit et al,

No ADA would try to get that verbal confession in if the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendement Rights were clear....expecially on video/audio. In other words, you must CLEARLY invoke your right to counsel. There must of been ambiguity, this is speculation only, of what the defendant was trying to say or did say.

I have had defendant's say, "Do you think I need a lawyer?" That IS NOT a clear invocation of their Fifth Admendement Rights. Each confession must be decided, by a judge, on the totality of relevant factors and circumstances.

Why do you think the Judge took several weeks to render his decision? There must of been case law presented by both sides to support their positions.

OBVIOUSLY, this wasn't as clear cut as you are making out. If it was, Judge Carter, who is an excellent judge but very liberal/usually sides with defense counsel, would have immediately ruled in favor of the defendant if it was so clear cut.

OBVIOUSLY, you know very little of criminal law and legality of confessions and how obtained.

[UnregisteredTHELAW]

On the Tit et al,

No ADA would try to get that verbal confession in if the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendement Rights were clear....expecially on video/audio. In other words, you must CLEARLY invoke your right to counsel. There must of been ambiguity, this is speculation only, of what the defendant was trying to say or did say.

I have had defendant's say, "Do you think I need a lawyer?" That IS NOT a clear invocation of their Fifth Admendement Rights. Each confession must be decided, by a judge, on the totality of relevant factors and circumstances.

Why do you think the Judge took several weeks to render his decision? There must of been case law presented by both sides to support their positions.

OBVIOUSLY, this wasn't as clear cut as you are making out. If it was, Judge Carter, who is an excellent judge but very liberal/usually sides with defense counsel, would have immediately ruled in favor of the defendant if it was so clear cut.

OBVIOUSLY, you know very little of criminal law and legality of confessions and how obtained.

#1: "I wish to invoke my 1st Amendment Rights" seems pretty clear to me.

#2: The detective really did no wrong. However, much would depend how much he did to pressure the suspect after those magic words were said.

#3: It seems clear to me the suspect invoked his rights. The detective proceeded anyway, and let the lawyers and the court deal with it later.

#4: Whatever statement the suspect gave to the detective after he invoked his rights can still be used as rebuttal if the defendant takes the stand.

#5: The detective lost nothing by taking the statement. It was a done deal after that. All it did was to put the judge on the spot to rule properly on this matter.

It is my belief that the detective left the room because he knew the room to get advice from his other detectives, superiors, and maybe an ADA that may have been there. If I was the ADA I would have told him to go for it as long as he was careful not to further abuse the rights of the suspect.

Now that the interrogations are being videotaped the detectives better come up with a better plan to avoid the suspect invoking their rights on camera.

The rules regarding confessions need to be changed to reflect reality. Any detective conducting such an investigation should be granted wide latitude in seeking the truth. This happened because the courts have been reluctant to see the truth for what it is by offering band aid solutions to the problem of confessions. I say tape the interrogations and let the jury decide if the truth was told, Miranda or no Miranda.

You do realize that the Tankleff 'confession' taken by a Suffolk detective is the primary reason why the police are now videotaping interrogations. Shame on the Suffolk DA for allowing it to come to that. The DA in Suffolk could have minimized their losses and allowed the Tankleff case go forth without pressuring Judge Braslow to come up with the ridiculous decision to deny Tankleff his 440 Motion.

About 18 years ago the SCPD brought in a suspect in a murder case. Allegedly, the dragged him around the office by his scalp. They hit him with telephone books. They pulled his pants down and pulled out his pubic hairs. They told the suspect's father that his son was OK and he would be coming home soon. He remained in their custody for 21 hours and didn't confess. If a jury saw a tape of that man being tortured they might have reasoned that a man would not be able to maintain his innocence under such conditions. Of course such a tape would never be shown to a jury. That fellow was arrested months later and is still in jail for a crime he probably didn't commit. Since that time there have been three witnesses that have signed affidavits stating that another person known to the police told them that he did the murder. One such person suffered a massive heart attack and believed that he would soon die from that attack. Another witness took a polygraph to substantiate his statement. What earthly reason would he have to lie at that time. There was another credible witness that gave invesitgators the same statement that another person confessed to him that he killed the woman that another stands convicted of.

The above information was brought to the attention of two Suffolk DA investigators. They believed the matter should be further investigated. The information seemed more than credible. When ADA John Collins heard of it he brought them down to his office and ripped them a new asshole. They no longer work in the SCDA after Spota took office.

[UnregisteredA PS]

The NCPD has complied with the pressure and have begun to videotape interrogations. Suffolk County, the real reason why videotaping of confessions was instituted by NCPD has not been instituted by SCPD. The reason is that they have put out bids for contractors to install such a system. They are awaiting a new round of bids said to be available in December...........but they didn't say which year.....

[Ed2434]

Nassau Police & The Rule of Law

Why would a seasoned homicide detective continue to question a suspect in custody, ON FRIGGIN VIDEO, after the suspect invoked his right to remain silent?

What the hell is wrong with these guys? Are they clueless or is that they don't give a fuck about long standing Supreme Court rulings or suspect's civil rights?
.


Who are you? Super Cop?

[UnregisteredLaw&Order]

Who are you? Super Cop?

No, he watches CSI.

[jury of peers]

CSI, NCIS, Law And Order, COPS, etc.,etc.,etc.,

good luck finding an unbiased jury in this day and age.

[where are we???]

Nassau Police & The Rule of Law

Why would a seasoned homicide detective continue to question a suspect in custody, ON FRIGGIN VIDEO, after the suspect invoked his right to remain silent?

What the hell is wrong with these guys? Are they clueless or is that they don't give a fuck about long standing Supreme Court rulings or suspect's civil rights?

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/judge-cop-can-t-tell-jury-of-arson-defendant-s-confession-1.1620263

A Nassau judge has ruled that the detective who interrogated quadruple murder suspect Caleb Lacey cannot tell a jury that Lacey confessed to the crime, meaning that the jury who decides Lacey's fate likely will never know about the confession, prosecutors said today.

Nassau Judge Jerald Carter had previously thrown out an eight hour videotape that prosecutors say shows him confessing to setting the fire that killed a Lawrence mother and three of her children, saying that the tape's sound quality was too poor to play for a jury.

Today, Carter ruled that the detective who took the confession, Carl Re, cannot testify about the confession because he did not stop questioning Lacey even after Lacey invoked his Fifth Amendment right during the interview. Re left the room briefly, then returned and continued questioning Lacey.

The only circumstances under which the jury might hear about the confession is if Lacey chooses to take the stand, in which case prosecutors would have the right to cross-examine him about his confession, Carter ruled.

Police did not take a written confession from Lacey.

Prosecutors say while the suppression of the confession is damaging, they have ample evidence to convict Lacey without it. It was prosecutor Michael Canty who first brought the court's attention to the fact that Lacey had invoked his Fifth Amendment right, and Canty did not object to the suppression of the confession.

"We have very strong evidence that points to the defendant's guilt and we look forward to presenting that to a jury," Canty said.

Lacey's attorney, Christopher Cassar of Huntington, said the suppression of the confession will hurt the prosecution's case.

"There are no eyewitness. There are no inculpatory statements. There is no scientific evidence. Their case is based on smoke and mirrors," Cassar said.

Police say Lacey, 20, a volunteer firefighter, doused his neighbor's staircase in gasoline, then lit it and drove to the Lawrence-Cedarhurst firehouse to await the 911 call. The Feb. 19 fire killed Morena Vanegas, 46; her son, Saul Preza, 19; and Morena and Edit Vanegas' two daughters, Andrea, 10, and Susanna, 9.

Lacey has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and arson charges.

they have him on camera doing it, there is plenty of evidence on his clothing.
if the detective stopped there would be no confession. so he pushed it and got one. It still can be used if the perp takes the stand under cross.

I say f' that. this guy killed a family to get his thrills putting out a fire. If he refused to talk, the dics would have had nothing. Its not a frame job, HE DID IT. They took a shot, and did the best they could. Its not like they beat him, or the guy is going to walk because of it.
Are we that assbackwards that we worry more about the perp then the 4 people he killed? I wonder if the posters who are criticizing the detective would be so critical if their family or friends burned to death that day?

[Public Poster]

they have him on camera doing it, there is plenty of evidence on his clothing.
if the detective stopped there would be no confession. so he pushed it and got one. It still can be used if the perp takes the stand under cross.

I say f' that. this guy killed a family to get his thrills putting out a fire. If he refused to talk, the dics would have had nothing. Its not a frame job, HE DID IT. They took a shot, and did the best they could. Its not like they beat him, or the guy is going to walk because of it.
Are we that assbackwards that we worry more about the perp then the 4 people he killed? I wonder if the posters who are criticizing the detective would be so critical if their family or friends burned to death that day?

Thank you for your comments.

Though this is a discussion about a police detective who ignored the rule of law when conducting an investigation...it has nothing to do with the crimes being investigated.

Obviously youre a cop who is more concerned with solving cases than following proper procedures and protecting the rights of American citizens.

Which makes you one fucking scary American.

Based on this detective's flagrant disregard for the law while he is being videotaped it makes one wonder how many times in the past he violated the law, and 'testalied' when ALLEGED confessions he extracted were not being taped.

[wawaaah]

Thank you for your comments.

Though this is a discussion about a police detective who ignored the rule of law when conducting an investigation...it has nothing to do with the crimes being investigated.

Obviously youre a cop who is more concerned with solving cases than following proper procedures and protecting the rights of American citizens.

Which makes you one fucking scary American.

Based on this detective's flagrant disregard for the law while he is being videotaped it makes one wonder how many times in the past he violated the law, and 'testalied' when ALLEGED confessions he extracted were not being taped.

The detective did it on camera and it took a judge several weeks to decide.
Who cares? We have a guy who committed a crime and killed 4 people.
The worst thing that could happen was the evidence would be dismissed. Talk to the family of the dead people about their rights you liberal sissy

[UnregisteredNOFOUL]

The Detective did no wrong. If he had the tape erased then he would have done wrong. What the judge needed a couple of weeks to decide is what the detective knew right after the suspect invoked his Rights.

[quite dramatic]

Based on this detective's flagrant disregard for the law while he is being videotaped it makes one wonder how many times in the past he violated the law, and 'testalied' when ALLEGED confessions he extracted were not being taped.

oh what a loser, why dont you stretch it a little. no one is buying it

[Unregistered1515]

Thank you for your comments.

Though this is a discussion about a police detective who ignored the rule of law when conducting an investigation...it has nothing to do with the crimes being investigated.

Obviously youre a cop who is more concerned with solving cases than following proper procedures and protecting the rights of American citizens.

Which makes you one fucking scary American.

Based on this detective's flagrant disregard for the law while he is being videotaped it makes one wonder how many times in the past he violated the law, and 'testalied' when ALLEGED confessions he extracted were not being taped.

Amazing how you automatically assumed he has testified, falsely, in the past. Perhaps it could be that the cops knew they had enough evidence and he continued questioning the defendant so as to have something on which to cross-examine the defendant should he choose to take the stand?

[code enforcer]

Amazing how you automatically assumed he has testified, falsely, in the past. Perhaps it could be that the cops knew they had enough evidence and he continued questioning the defendant so as to have something on which to cross-examine the defendant should he choose to take the stand?

Everyone knows the police never, under any circumstances, lie, obscure or stretch the truth. It just doesn't happen.

[goodwork]

Everyone knows the police never, under any circumstances, lie, obscure or stretch the truth. It just doesn't happen.

I hope they keep on lying/breaking the rules if it puts scum like this in jail

[sad sad sad donut]

I hope they keep on lying/breaking the rules if it puts scum like this in jail

Looking at the time of the posting get out of the FH and go do your job

[Unregistered33]

Looking at the time of the posting get out of the FH and go do your job

no way he could work midnights and be on his day off. think things though a little more. you should also think how wise it is to make statements of supposed fact based on a newspaper article.

[Sure I will]

no way he could work midnights and be on his day off. think things though a little more. you should also think how wise it is to make statements of supposed fact based on a newspaper article.

Sure, will but do the same

[sad sad meth]

Looking at the time of the posting get out of the FH and go do your job

been through this 100s of times sqd 1 working 7-3 just back from the gym....not npcd scpd.

[Unr24323452]

Thank you for your comments.

Though this is a discussion about a police detective who ignored the rule of law when conducting an investigation...it has nothing to do with the crimes being investigated.

Obviously youre a cop who is more concerned with solving cases than following proper procedures and protecting the rights of American citizens.

Which makes you one fucking scary American.

Based on this detective's flagrant disregard for the law while he is being videotaped it makes one wonder how many times in the past he violated the law, and 'testalied' when ALLEGED confessions he extracted were not being taped.

see how important "proper procedures" and rights are when your family gets burned alive. if the kid wanted to invoke his right to remain silent ... STFU, and don't give a confession.

[lisadf]

see how important "proper procedures" and rights are when your family gets burned alive. if the kid wanted to invoke his right to remain silent ... STFU, and don't give a confession.

Amen