Search warrant hearing
Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard-Times reports that Judge Barbara Walther formerly vacated a hearing on the validity of search warrants used to enter the YFZ Ranch in April as requested by attorneys for the FLDS church.
A source told me a couple weeks ago when I wrote about the Texas Attorney General's response defending the search that it probably would not go forward since none of the three men who brought the action face any charges.
That means, as the attorney general's office argued, that their standing to challenge the search is doubtful since they can not claim any harm.
I have been asked a lot about the sexual assault indictment brought against Keith William Dutson Jr. by the Schleicher County Grand Jury last week. Some are confused about how he can be charged.
Dutson Jr., 23, is in a monogamous relationship with a teenager who was listed as being 16 at the time a Bishop's Record was filled out in March 2007 at the YFZ Ranch. She gave birth to a son a month later, while she was still 16.
Under Texas law then in force, a 16-year-old could legally marry with parents' permission. But it would have been illegal to have sexual relations outside of a legal marriage with someone under the age of 17. From the records available, it appears Dutson Jr.'s wife conceived their child shortly after turning 16.
Several issues arise: Was it a legal marriage? Probably not, since many FLDS marriages are religious, not civil, unions. Did it occur in Texas or some other state, where other laws might have been in play? Don't know.
A source told me a couple weeks ago when I wrote about the Texas Attorney General's response defending the search that it probably would not go forward since none of the three men who brought the action face any charges.
That means, as the attorney general's office argued, that their standing to challenge the search is doubtful since they can not claim any harm.
I have been asked a lot about the sexual assault indictment brought against Keith William Dutson Jr. by the Schleicher County Grand Jury last week. Some are confused about how he can be charged.
Dutson Jr., 23, is in a monogamous relationship with a teenager who was listed as being 16 at the time a Bishop's Record was filled out in March 2007 at the YFZ Ranch. She gave birth to a son a month later, while she was still 16.
Under Texas law then in force, a 16-year-old could legally marry with parents' permission. But it would have been illegal to have sexual relations outside of a legal marriage with someone under the age of 17. From the records available, it appears Dutson Jr.'s wife conceived their child shortly after turning 16.
Several issues arise: Was it a legal marriage? Probably not, since many FLDS marriages are religious, not civil, unions. Did it occur in Texas or some other state, where other laws might have been in play? Don't know.
50 Comments:
It's called "Selective Prosecution". The whole world knows that.
FYI Brooke, according to Texas Law the laws of Texas apply to persons married elsewhere.
Why didnt Keith Dutson just file for a marriage license? He could of gotten the paperwork, got signatures from the parents, and married legally.
Most polygamists wives , the first one is the legal wife. As it is now, he is in lots of trouble.
onthestreet, actually its not selective prosecution. Many underage young people have done this, and the parents didnt give permission and the young man has been charged in Texas.
I guess since walthers vacated it, "formerly" and FORMALLY might both apply!
*********
"Many underage young people have done this, and the parents didnt give permission and the young man has been charged in Texas."
But the overwhelming majority have not been charged, and the facts relating to how the crimes were uncovered indicates it was very selective.
...and your method of excusing the actions used to convict anyone at the ranch is also selective in more ways than one.
They've made it obvious that since their methods have been overlooked for so long, they can use them against any, whether innocent or not.
"For the records available, it appears Dutson Jr.'s wife conceived their child right shortly after turning 16."
I do not recall seeing records that would indicate that date or the date of their "marriage".
Anyone else seen such?
Bill, they do not in all cases. I've argued this before at length with an attorney or two who posts here, and they finally admitted it wasn't true.
Texas law concerning age does not apply elsewhere. If the Dutsons were to marry in North Carolina, as they may well have been permitted to do after she was pregnant, and if they had sexual relations in Mexico while vacationing each with their own families, there would be no crime in Texas.
I'm not saying that exotic formulation is the case, I'm just saying you're wrong.
That means, as the attorney general's office argued, that their standing to challenge the search is doubtful since they can not claim any harm.
CAN'T CLAIM ANY HARM? That's laughable.
There wasn't one person on the premises that wasn't "harmed".
The entire ranch was treated as ONE HOUSEHOLD.
Everyone there was subjected to the whims of LE and CPS.
ALL the children were taken, for no just reason.
The lives of ALL residents, life as they knew it was disrupted, and continues to be disrupted.
The residents' temple was violated.
ALL homes and buildings were ransacked.
They've ALL endured negativity and slander by the press and neighbors.
How does the state justify catagorizing the ranch as ONE household while persecuting them and violating their rights, yet they are INDIVIDUAL when they attempt to defend themselves?
Every single person there was harmed.
Kdp,
If you read brookes story and didnt just skim over it, you would of read this:
Dutson Jr., 23, is in a monogamous relationship with a teenager who was listed as being 16 at the time a Bishop's Record was filled out in March 2007 at the YFZ Ranch. She gave birth to a son a month later, while she was still 16.
Under Texas law then in force, a 16-year-old could legally marry with parents' permission. But it would have been illegal to have sexual relations outside of a legal marriage with someone under the age of 17. For the records available, it appears Dutson Jr.'s wife conceived their child right shortly after turning 16.
Im not excusing any underage marriage, whether it be a religion that beleives in it, or just joe blow on the street.
The difference between a 16yr old girl in a regular family, who gets married, goes through the proper process. They file for a license, They get parental or court order by a judge.
The law is there for the purpose of protecting the minor. Any Minor.
Before crying selective prosecution, go out and do an internet search of statutory rape. People get prosecuted for it on a regular basis.
My opinion is that if the charges are true, he's technically guilty. Still it seems to me that they could find others more culpable to charge. But, heck, maybe they're using the shot gun approach. Throw it out a lot and see what sticks.
Why is it so hard to wait until the girls are 18?
Betty,
This business about "Why is it so hard to wait until they are 18" is a sidebar.
Texas marries girls at 14 and 15, even today. What we're really talking about then is driving without a license and the penalty being a scarlet letter for life as a pedophile and possible life imprisonment.
Does that seem rational to you?
In 2001, Texas’s Governor Rick Perry signed into law legislation that strengthened mandatory reporting laws for healthcare and reproductive care employees. One of the main provisions of the bill stripped much of the discretion that these employees enjoyed in terms of what cases of sexual abuse they were required to report. Since that time, they have been required to report all cases of sexual contact that involve clients under 17 years of age unless the partner is less than three years older. Moreover, all sexual contact that involves a client under 14 years of age must be reported regardless of the age of the partner.13
Planned Parenthood complained that this law would result in a flood of frivolous claims of sexual assault and statutory rape. They contended that real cases would be lost in the shuffle of the bureaucracy and children would suffer the consequences. Six years later, however, that has not proven to be the case. In 2000, there were 6,925 confirmed allegations of sexual abuse of children in the state of Texas.14 After the implementation of the new mandatory reporting requirements, confirmed allegations rose fairly steadily. By 2006, however, the number of confirmed allegations of sexual abuse of children had fallen back near 2000 levels (to 7,176). 15 Clearly, strong reporting requirements protect children and lead to more sexual predators and child rapists being identified and prosecuted.
The reporting is irrelevant unless convictions accompany a significant number of the reported incidents. Additionally Marrie, you point out that the level of reporting has fallen back.
Is that because LESS people are violating the law, new ways around it have been found or that kids are wising up and saying "Oh, it was my "no greater than three years older boyfriend?"
Marrie,
The story tells does not tell us when the marriage took place or what evidence supports the date of conception.
The exact questions I seek answers to, regarding the Dutson charges, would be answered if I knew the date of the marriage, the bride's DOB and the child's DOB (date conceived).
The state law requires approval by parents AND a judge if the bride to be is under 16 YO. The story does not tell me if that requirement would apply.
You provide partial accuracies and ramblings comments on what your opinion is of how things should happen, but do not provide any finite data addressing the questions I brought up.
This particular case, IMO, clearly illustrates that Texas is going after YFZ residents using any any means possible to reach an end result.
To answer a couple of your questions:
The teenager's DOB is 8/9/90.
Her child was born 4/27/07.
Texas CPS calculated that she conceived the child while she was 15. She was interviewed by Tina Martinez and Ruby Gutierrez, and her information was shared during the two-day hearing in April.
On clarification regarding my last post: At least, those are the facts put forth by Texas CPS in court documents.
Thanks!
Then depending upon the date of their marriage, be it legal or not, Dutson faces charges because he is >3 years older than his wife and/or the marriage was not technically legal due to them not following the exact process required.
Texans should strut rather proudly knowing those they elect to represent them are working so hard to solve this crime and put the alleged perpetrator behind bars for a couple decades.
He then will not be able to conspire each day directly influence that child's beliefs!
Solving problems like this might be a topic they can brag on in campaign speeches!
I don't think it's selective prosecution. I'll bet that anytime law enforcement finds out about a 23 year old having sex with a 15 year old there will be a prosecution.
What's unusual about this case is how law enforcement found out about the case. Most of the times there is a complaining witness - here there is none.
So what you're in favor of here Ron, is putting someone in jail for life and branding him with the epithet "pedophile" because they drove the car without a license.
Prosecuting a monogamous relationship between two people that simply didn't go to the courthouse to register is a bit much for me.
There is 5 years difference in their ages Ron, not 8.
22 and 16 as of Mar 07, according to the Bishop's Records.
For all my life, the experts have claimed this is a good age spread because females generally mature more quickly than males. I can't tell that there has been any significant change.
YMCA, in my area anyway, didn't have co-ed sports and field trips (canoeing, etc). I thought it a bit sexist and was shocked to learn the rationale. They were actually protecting the boys from being shutout by the girls who were more mature and physically developed than their same age male peers.
1. it's amazing how some people do a 'cut and paste' of another's writing and think no one notices...that's just a personal aside, since I do take notice when someone whose writing style speaks to limited intelligence or education, or both, most of the time, and then once in awhile they write and speak as a well versed professional...
2. doing the arithmetic, the child very well could have been concieved almost immediately AFTER the mother's 16th birthday...since there are no medical records indicating an ultrasound or other testing that would have narrowed the date of conception...and it is a well documented phenomenom that teenage mothers often give birth slightly prematurely, what is to say that did not occur here?
3. Just because no document was found in the illegal search, what is to say that there wasn't, in fact, a letter signed by both of the young woman's parents giving their permission for marriage? Since Texas recognizes, for prosecution sake if nothing else, "marriage" as any state between two people that 'purports' to be a marriage, there is no reason to believe these two were not married at the time of both conception and birth. In fact, given the cultural practices of the FLDS, it is highly improbable that they weren't married if she got pregnant! And, again given the cultural practices of the community, she would not have gotten married without her parent's permission!
So, if Texas makes it a marriage for prosecution, they have to use the same standards for exoneration....that is what I would argue.....they were married, with permission, therefore no crime occured. Period.
I can't believe I just figured this out, I do have a life!! If she conceived on her 16th birthday, that would give you a due date of May 2nd (being 40 weeks) a full term baby is 37 to 42 weeks. So it's quite possible she was 16, the days are just way too close to call an exact age!!
I am just a little confused, some people are being procecuted because according to Texas Law anything goes to constitute marriage. But when someone is "married" they are being procecuted for statutary rape?
Make up my mind here which way is it? Does a religious ceremony constitute a legal marriage or not.
Forget that last statement, I believe I get it, it was illegal for him to marry her in the first place, so it doesn't matter whether they are married or not.
Ruby, suffice it to say if you read Texas law, or more precisely, Texas LAW(S) it becomes as clear as mud. Taken together though there is some confusion.
Clearly Texas wanted underage marriage to be LEGALLY registered to be valid, that much can be determined. Mr. Dutson is in trouble partly because he doesn't appear to have registered his with his then underage bride.
Texas though, to this day, marries girls of the age of 14 and 15. They just want to be the only ones doing it. As I said before, this is the equivalent of not registering a car. No one has any doubt that Mr. Dutson and his bride are committed to one another and wish to be together. The state proposes to make a sex offender out of Keith and a felon and when he gets out of jail, he will doubtless end up with his wife despite what the state wants.
Now addressing the warrant issue. Forgive me for saying so but that sounds fascist to me. Is Texas planning on seperating itself from the rest of the union? The USA constitution need not apply?
It's political. The FLDS have been so trashed in the public mind that most are willing to look the other way while their rights are trampled on, and the state is endeavoring to take advantage of the climate they helped create.
It will establish precedents though, precedents we all will have to live with.
This post has been removed by the author.
The Teenage Bride of Keith Dutson was born 8/9/1990. She's 18 now. Honestly, this is really pointless.
In TX if you're under 16 you need parental consent and court approval. Good luck convincing a judge that it's in the best interest of a 15-year-old child to get married. Translation--there's a very good chance the judge won't approve it.
The Teenage Bride of Keith Dutson was born 8/9/1990. She's 18 now. Honestly, this is really pointless.
----------
What is the point of prosecuting now? Destroying a family? Having a child fatherless?
For the sake of our Constitution and freedom I sincerely hope FLDS doesn't drop the ball with the warrant issue.
Several points.
KBP,
If the child to be married is under 16, all it takes is a judge's order, with or without parental consent (although as a practical matter, it would be difficult to get a judge to do so without parental support).
Hugh,
There is a significant difference between driving a car without a license and have sex with a child without benefit of a legal marriage. That is why one is a traffic misdemeanor and the other is a felony. I would have hoped that you could understand the difference.
Regina,
What difference does it make if the baby was conceived before, on, or after the girl's 16th birthday? In any case, it is still a felony offense, and the only time that it would be enhanced is if she were younger than 15, or the only time it would be legal is if she were 17 or older.
The 'purports' that you keep talking about making it a marriage - doesn't. Just because Texas uses a definition of marriage for the purpose of the criminal offense of bigamy doesn't mean they have to allow it as a defense to the sexual assault of a child. Fortunately, your legal advice is as bad as your treatment of victims. Unless they have a marriage by license, Dutson is toast.
"...Unless they have a marriage by license, Dutson is toast."
Coming from a proud Texan?
;)
Just to further point out "selective prosecution"; Elissa Wall is married to the father of her baby she had when she was 16, and conceived when she was 15. Incidentally the father Lamont Barlow is older than Elissa's former husband Allen Steed, who is charged with rape for being more than 3 years older than her.
Why didn't the state charge Lamont Barlow likewise? Because "they looked like a happy couple" and it would destroy their case against Warren Jeffs.
ME
Elissa didnt marry Lamont Barlow till she was 17.
I understand the difference Blues, I understand that what you've done is elevated the LACK of registration of a committed monogamous relationship to the level of murder.
Had they gone and simply gotten a piece of paper (the equivalent of a car registration) there would be no crime. This sir, IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and PRUDISH. No one in this discussion thinks that Keith Dutson will EVER leave his bride. Does any one of us think his children will be better off with him as a convicted pedophile, registered sex offender and FELON? Does ANYONE think this is the best course for his family, his wife and his children? If you say that you think so I doubt I can ever be convinced that you are doing anything but LYING.
This is SICK, this is STUPID. For lack of going to a courthouse to REGISTER a relationship you're advocating the expenditure of government tax dollars to persecute the wife and the children in this family. THAT, IS SICK.
hugh
Actually, I'm not in favor of a whole lot of the sexual offender laws. I think something like 50 to 70% of the registered sex offenders are over 18 folks having sex with partners below the age of consent.
Texas needs more flexibility in their laws. Treating Dutson the same as a pedophile who has sex with 5 year old children is just not right.
Ron, I agree that he may have violated a law, that remains to be seen, it would certainly seem like he has. It's cases like the Dutsons that make people reject a law as wrongheaded. I'm glad we agree that this could be the case.
There is a principle in contract law called "affirmation." It is used in debts. A 14 year old can sign and enter into an installment loan agreement with a bank for instance, a little known fact. The bank can legally write that contract with that minor person.
The contract is unenforceable until it is deemed to be affirmed, which occurs by 6 payments being made after the 18th birthday of the person making those payments, then the contract is validated.
Certainly an argument can be made that the Dutsons are in a common law marriage NOW as she has passed the age of 18. She can certainly speak for herself NOW from the perspective of the law. Perhaps we should be asking HER.
What sense is there in prosecuting the husband of a woman for what WAS a crime only by virtue of legal paperwork when that relationship is now NOT a crime?
Marrie,
"Elissa didnt marry Lamont Barlow till she was 17."
You're funny. That is the exact point many of the bloggers are trying to make. Lamont Barlow FATHERED A CHILD WHEN ELISSA WAS ONLY 15. ALLEN DIDN'T FATHER ANY CHILD WITH ELISSA.
The only supposed crime Keith Dutson committed is that he "purports to be married".
That is called selective prosecution.
Brooke,
You need to double check your birthdates
Because on the Bishop list in March 24,2007
Keith Dutson Jr lists his age as 22
And his wifes's age 16.
Keith Dutson Sr. is 46 in March 2007
and His wife Ruleen is 15 March 2007.
Now, each Head of Household filled out their own family sheet.
ME
Elissa miscarried a child when she was married to Alan Steed at 14.
Were you there when she concieved a child with Lamont Barlow????
Since both Elissa and Lamont cant speak to any family members, how would YOU know when she got pregnant with someones baby?
OOps.
Keith Dutsons sr wife Ruleen was 17 in march 2007
Marie is funny. Neither Keith has a wife named Ruleen.
oops again, lol
damn to many wives, to many names,... Keith Dutson Sr 46 wife Martha Alice Emack 17
Marie,
You're funny. Elissa had a baby when she was 16. There has to be a father to have a baby. That is how I know.
ME
Perhaps you need to do some research, Elissa Wall is now 22yrs old. her children are 3yrs old and 1 yr old.
So, I would think she had a very long pregnancy with lamont, like 5yrs long before she had her first child.
"My opinion is that if the charges are true, he's technically guilty. Still it seems to me that they could find others more culpable to charge. But, heck, maybe they're using the shot gun approach. Throw it out a lot and see what sticks."--betty
---------------------
Obviously they are using the shotgun version of justice: kill them all and let God sort them out. And why not arrest the entire state of Texas and then figure out who they can make a case against? Everyone is guilty of something. A survey in Briton showed that the normally law-abiding Brits break the law on average of seven times a week, or once per day. They listed the most frequent crimes (that folks would share, I suppose):
Top 20 crimes:
1. Speeding
2. Talking on a mobile/texting while driving
3. Dropping litter
4. Illegally downloading music
5. Cycling on pavements
6. Eating or drinking while driving
7. Having sex in a public place
8. Parking partly on a pavement
9. Taking drugs
10. Not wearing a seatbelt
11. Having sex under the age of 16
12. Parking on double yellow lines
13. Cycling with lights after dark
14. Not cleaning up dog poo
15. Smoking in a public place
16. Driving through a red light
17. Not having a TV license
18. Not informing the DVLA of a change of address/name
19. Taking a child out of school for a holiday without the head's permission
20. Carry an offensive weapon
So having sex under the age of 16 is less frequent than public sex, but more frequent than not cleaning up dog poo. What a country! You're more likely to trip over public fornicators than step in doggy doo.
marrie said...
ME
Elissa didnt marry Lamont Barlow till she was 17.
So you admit, marrie, that the Prophet is in jail for blessing people and performing a marriage, while the real criminal (Lamont) is allowed to "marry" his victim (when she's "of age" of course!)
Did the teenage girl and her parents consent to questioning by Ruby Gutierrez? If not, then the evidence learned during the interview process can be suppressed.
I should say, were the girls ordered to answer questions, and were their parents ordered to provide the children for questioning? If so was there probable cause specific to those parents (other then "they're FLDS") to warrant the forced questioning?
Were they told they could have an attorney present?
Already we are hearing that some of the information gleaned late that night by the girls is turning out to be inaccurate, such as the case where one young girl stated that she knew of a 16 year old with 4 children -- no evidence of any such case from YFZ has arisen. This smells of coerced testimony, perhaps with leading questions, which would be inadmissable in court.
Post a Comment
<< Home