Will warrantless search set strangler free?

During the pre-trial hearings of the murder case against Robert Loucks, accused of strangling his live-in girlfriend to death last December, Dutchess County Sheriff's Deputy Benjamin Sistarenik testified how he came to discover the victim's body in the home Loucks shared with Storms.

On December 3, Deputy Sistarenik along with Deputy Janine Arsenault questioned Loucks at the home as to the whereabouts of Ms. Storms, after concerned family members reported she had missed a meeting with CPS workers in which she was to regain custody of two of her children. Loucks stated that he and Storms had an argument in the pre-dawn hours of December 2, that she had left the residence, did not return, and that he had no idea where she might be.

The two deputies returned to the home the next afternoon to investigate further, accompanied by Heidi Pulver, grandmother of one of Storms' children. Deputy Sistarenick testified that Deputy Arsenault had told him that their commanding officer at headquarters, Lt. John Watterson, had decided they should try to find a way inside the house. Sistarenik found an unlocked window, poked his head inside, to see Loucks standing in the living room. Loucks allegedly then invited the three of them into the house at which time Sistarenik did a quick search.

Loucks was then driven to Sheriff's headquarters by Deputy Arsenault under the pretext of filing a missing-person report, while Sistarenik stayed behind and re-entered the home to conduct a more thorough search, although police had no warrant to conduct a search. A point raised by defense attorney Steve Patterson at the hearing.

"Did you ask Mr. Loucks if you could look around after he left?" Patterson asked Sistarenik.


"No," the deputy replied.

During this subsequent search, that was conducted without permission and without a warrant, the Deputy discovered the body of Tyrese Storms in the walk-in closet of the master bedroom, behind a pile of clothes.

"She was clearly deceased," the deputy testified. "The missing-persons case was clearly now something more."

Clearly. But what is not so clear, is by what right the Deputy made his discovery. Sadly, because of the heinous nature of the crime, I do not expect any public outrcy over such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. But is that not how our liberties are always trampled, how it has been done by tyrannical despots all through the ages? Today it is an alleged murderer's rights who are trampled, tomorrow, your rights my friends. That is the nature of the game. Once you cede power to the rulers, the only way to ever get it back is revolution. Of course, no one wants to see a killer go free, which is why it is so important to have competent police, not courts who will infringe upon your rights simply because the police cannot do their jobs properly and within the bounds of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." ~Blackstone's Formulation

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry

“In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.” ~Thich Nhat Hanh

The report from Poughkeepsie Journal can be found at this link:

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20110518/NEWS05/105180338/Judge-views-police-interview-tapes-murder-suspect

EDIT to add:

It appears as though the deputy who made the discovery, without a warrant or even permission to be in the house, may be guilty of a felony under NY State law. No charge has been filed against the deputy of course, no disciplinary action taken, and it probably won't do anything to help get Loucks a fair trial at this point either. But it appears that in the United States, a police officer can commit a felony in order to obtain evidence.

S 140.17 Criminal trespass in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he
knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building, and when, in the
course of committing such crime, he:
1. Possesses, or knows that another participant in the crime
possesses, an explosive or a deadly weapon; or
2. Possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun, as those terms are defined
in section 265.00, and also possesses or has readily accessible a
quantity of ammunition which is capable of being discharged from such
firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
3. Knows that another participant in the crime possesses a firearm,
rifle or shotgun under circumstances described in subdivision two.
Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class D felony.