Burglars Call the Cops After Accidentally Stealing Child Pornography

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.inquisitr.com/148681/burglars-call-the-cops-after-accidentally-stealing-child-pornography/


Two teenagers broke into a California home in order to steal a few valuables, including a stack of blank CDs. When they returned home with their loot they discovered that the CDs weren’t actually blank, they contained Kraig Stockard’s child pornography collection. The two robbers decided to turn themselves in to police in order to turn over the collection.

The Huffington Post reports that the Merced County Sheriff’s Department decided not to arrest the two burglars. They did, however, decide to raid Stockard’s home.

The police seized several computers, laptops and other hardware, but they did not say if they found any more contraband. Regardless, the police still had plenty of evidence on the stolen disks to arrest Stockard. According to a statement from police, 30 of the 50 stolen disks contained child pornography. The Sheriff’s Department said that thousands of photos and videos were found on the disks.

Stockard was booked on possession of child pornography, but Fox 40 reports that he has already posted his $25000 bail.

My Fox 40 reports that although the police did not press charges against the two thieves, the two teenagers aren’t completely off the hook. Their case has been turned over to the Merced County District Attorney’s Office for review.

Deputy Tom McKenzie said:

“We did not actually go out and arrest the suspects for the burglary. They were obviously the lesser of two evils.”

[John F Kennedy III]

They need more evidence than the word of burglars.

[LibForestPaul]

Nothing disturbs me going after people possessing child pornography. However in this case:
1. How is child pornography defined by this jurisdiction?
2.
Regardless, the police still had plenty of evidence on the stolen disks to arrest Stockard. Not if I am on the jury.

[acptulsa]

They need more evidence than the word of burglars.

Um, I'm afraid I'm not buying that this is an 'unbroken chain of evidence' after these disks passed through the hands of teenage burglars...

I'd also love to know if those teenage burglars had a warrant.

If this guy gets convicted, his lawyer needs to be disbarred.

[jkr]

wait...its ok to break into homes now?


whut?

[specsaregood]

//

[moostraks]

I know just how to frame somebody I don't like now.... Claim to have broken into their house and stolen cds of child porn, then turn them over to police. presto!

and disgruntled ex's rejoice at the new tactic availed to them for retaliation purposes...

[TonySutton]

So if this is ok, when the police suspect someone of wrong doing but do not have enough evidence to get a warrant they simply hire a couple of teenagers to steal some blank discs. Honestly, these kids only stole some blank discs? Smells fishy to me

[specsaregood]

So if this is ok, when the police suspect someone of wrong doing but do not have enough evidence to get a warrant they simply hire a couple of teenagers to steal some blank discs.

Warrants?! Hell we can kill people without due process nowadays, who needs warrants?

[aGameOfThrones]

I know just how to frame somebody I don't like now.... Claim to have broken into their house and stolen cds of child porn, then turn them over to police. presto!

Exactly my thoughts.

[TruckinMike]

wait...its ok to break into homes now?


whut?

For the greater good - didn't you know?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I know just how to frame somebody I don't like now.... Claim to have broken into their house and stolen cds of child porn, then turn them over to police. presto!

Going to guess the whole case hinges on what police seized during their raid after they obtained a warrant. The stolen cds probably can't be proven from where they were stolen, or that they weren't tampered with or something.

If the computers and "hardware" taken by the police afterwards are clean, he'll probably get off. If, however, it too is full of child porn: he's (rightfully) screwed.

[specsaregood]

Going to guess the whole case hinges on what police seized during their raid after they obtained a warrant. The stolen cds probably can't be proven from where they were stolen, or that they weren't tampered with or something.

If the computers and "hardware" taken by the police afterwards are clean, he'll probably get off. If, however, it too is full of child porn: he's (rightfully) screwed.

Even then, they think stolen evidence is enough to arrest and ruin this guy's reputation for life. Unless the guy is actually in those pictures with the kids that seems problematic to me.

[pcosmar]

Going to guess the whole case hinges on what police seized during their raid after they obtained a warrant. The stolen cds probably can't be proven from where they were stolen, or that they weren't tampered with or something.

If the computers and "hardware" taken by the police afterwards are clean, he'll probably get off. If, however, it too is full of child porn: he's (rightfully) screwed.

Unless the warrant is thrown out by a Judge. As it should be.

So these kids broke into a house and stole "blank" CDs but left all the other valuables alone.

the odor from that alone,,,,,

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Unless the warrant is thrown out by a Judge. As it should be.

Didn't a judge give the police the warrant?


So these kids broke into a house and stole "blank" CDs but left all the other valuables alone.

the odor from that alone,,,,,

Don't think they only stole CDs. The story says: "two teenagers broke into a California home in order to steal a few valuables, including a stack of blank CDs...."

[pcosmar]

Didn't a judge give the police the warrant?



Don't think they only stole CDs. The story says they stole blank CDs "among other things."

The judge should have never signed the warrant based on the circumstances,, unless he was never told of that.

So basically you are defending this, You think it is OK for someone to break in and plant evidence then fabricate some alleged crime to get a warrant to find the planted evidence.

You don't see the potential danger here?

I see no way of telling was was or was not on those computers before the thieves had access to them.

[specsaregood]

Didn't a judge give the police the warrant?
Don't think they only stole CDs. The story says: "two teenagers broke into a California home in order to steal a few valuables, including a stack of blank CDs...."

Let's put you in this guys shoes. His his is broken into, his privacy invaded, his belongings taken. Then a couple days later the cops raid your house saying that the people that violated you claim to have found child porn. Let's say you are innocent. You just got violated again. Now the news hits the media, you are about to really get violated, your life ruined -- i sure hope you don't have your own kids or you'll never see them again -- ALL ON THE WORD of two admitted thiefs? I've got a real problem with that.


I see no way of telling was was or was not on those computers before the thieves had access to them.
That is excellent point. Barring this guy actually being in the pictures or it being pictures of his own kids, this guy shouldn't have even been charged.

[acptulsa]

So, you can burgle all you want and steal whatever you like, provided you bring us any evidence you discover during your illegal search and seizure. Not only is the Constitution dead, but the cops are now openly in league with the crooks.

Yeah, this is a healthy precedent.

[outspoken]

I have more disdain for child molesters and those that seek to exploit children in any fashion than just about anyone on the face of the earth. That said, this does set a presidence that violates illegal search and seizure based on the word of two thieves. I would think the police and detectives involved would have been able to find a better way to go about following up on this guy presumed to be innocent until found guilty. This case stinks to high hell on many levels.

[Original_Intent]

Unless the warrant is thrown out by a Judge. As it should be.

So these kids broke into a house and stole "blank" CDs but left all the other valuables alone.

the odor from that alone,,,,,

That's what I thought - stealing supposedly blank CDs - REALLY?!?

The guy may be scum, who knows, but if this isn't "fruit from a poisonous tree" I don't know what is.

The police can't get a search warrant? - so they make a deal with the last guy they busted with drugs to burglarize a house to get evidence for them? Is that a path we want to go down?

[brandon]

Who downloads porn to their computer?
Who burns porn to CDs?
Who keeps a library of child porn sitting around their house?

[Lafayette]

Blank CDs or DVDs are not Valuable in any sense of the word , 100 for $20
If i was breaking into a home to steal valuable things , blank CDs/ DVDs would be at the bottom of my list, right next to the man's tooth paste and decorative throw pillows.

[specsaregood]

Who downloads porn to their computer?
Who burns porn to CDs?
Who keeps a library of child porn sitting around their house?


Maybe cops and judges do and that is why they found it so plausible?

[pcosmar]

Blank CDs or DVDs are not Valuable in any sense of the word , 100 for $20
If i was breaking into a home to steal valuable things , blank CDs/ DVDs would be at the bottom of my list, right next to the man's tooth paste and decorative throw pillows.

Exactly,, and why take them to police and incriminate yourself. Allegedly they discovered it when attempting to use them.???
Erase and reuse.

[oyarde]

Blank CDs or DVDs are not Valuable in any sense of the word , 100 for $20
If i was breaking into a home to steal valuable things , blank CDs/ DVDs would be at the bottom of my list, right next to the man's tooth paste and decorative throw pillows. I would rather have the toothpaste .

[John F Kennedy III]

Um, I'm afraid I'm not buying that this is an 'unbroken chain of evidence' after these disks passed through the hands of teenage burglars...

I'd also love to know if those teenage burglars had a warrant.

If this guy gets convicted, his lawyer needs to be disbarred.

This.

[John F Kennedy III]

The judge should have never signed the warrant based on the circumstances,, unless he was never told of that.

So basically you are defending this, You think it is OK for someone to break in and plant evidence then fabricate some alleged crime to get a warrant to find the planted evidence.

You don't see the potential danger here?

I see no way of telling was was or was not on those computers before the thieves had access to them.

Whoa! I didn't think of that before. The guy can argue that the burglars planted evidence that was later found in his house during the raid :D

[brushfire]

Who downloads porn to their computer?
Who burns porn to CDs?
Who keeps a library of child porn sitting around their house?


Apparently, pedophiles do. Oh, and folks that are "curious" like Pete Townsend.

Yeaup... I think there's enough evidence here to support a drone attack - Obama, what's your take? Sexual terrorist? No due process necessary? Ok, take em out.

[guitarlifter]

Furthermore, not only did the cop do an injustice of not catching the criminals who VIOLATED someone else's property, he decided that an ACTUAL CRIME was less of a crime than someone VIEWING a crime. Is viewing a crime violating anyone's rights? If I get off watching security cams where people get caught on camera stealing money, should I be thrown in jail for doing so? Coercing or convincing children to take act in child pornography is a different story, but the viewing of it should not be illegal. It's a third party who isn't forcing anyone to do anything. "The lesser of two evils"? My ass.

[dannno]

First I wish they would distinguish between child pornography and teenage pornography, because they don't, and that is a huge distinction. Someone who has pornography of actual kids under 14 is a completely different class of individual than someone who has pornography of high school age girls. Girls in high school have plenty of sex, kids in elementary school don't. While people may be generally disgusted by both, one is much more natural than the other. However realistically possessing either one is kinda stupid considering how much trouble you can get in.

Second of all, possessing any type of child pornography does not in and of itself hurt anybody. It is a victimless crime. I think it actually reduces the chances of pedophiles acting out on their impulses.

If he made any of it then he is guilty of child abuse. If he bought any of it from pornographers then he is funding child pornography and guilty of child abuse. Otherwise he had no part in abusing any children.

[kylejack]

This could be a clever police ruse. Perhaps they told these teens to break in and conduct a warrantless search. Who steals blank CDs, anyway? They're trivially cheap these days.

[juleswin]

Unless the warrant is thrown out by a Judge. As it should be.

So these kids broke into a house and stole "blank" CDs but left all the other valuables alone.

the odor from that alone,,,,,

they came in just for the empty CDs. So everything is on the up and up, move along weirdos

[Dr.3D]

I thought possession of child pornography is enough to bust somebody. Of course the supposed thieves were in possession and thus they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

[pcosmar]

This could be a clever police ruse. Perhaps they told these teens to break in and conduct a warrantless search. Who steals blank CDs, anyway? They're trivially cheap these days.

They are also reusable. wipe and reformat.

[pcosmar]

I thought possession of child pornography is enough to bust somebody. Of course the supposed thieves were in possession and thus they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

You would think. And what if they were blank,,when they stole them?

[Dr.3D]

They are also reusable. wipe and reformat.
I don't believe all CD's are reusable. I've got some right here that if you burn them and they have an error on them, all I can do is throw them away.

[Dr.3D]

You would think. And what if they were blank,,when they stole them?
Then those who turned them in may have recorded the illegal stuff on them. Or perhaps the cops put that stuff on them.

[kylejack]

Note that the police don't say if anything was found on the hard drives they pulled during the raid.

[AFPVet]

If the government wants to spy on its citizens, send messages, or take care of "wet work", all they have to do is hire criminals (the non-uniformed kind) to carry it out. If they hire criminals to commit burglary, they can disavow all knowledge of the crime—while letting the "agents" go (if caught) after they find something on the homeowner.

[Dr.3D]

If the government wants to spy on its citizens, send messages, or take care of "wet work", all they have to do is hire criminals (the non-uniformed kind) to carry it out. If they hire criminals to commit burglary, they can disavow all knowledge of the crime—while letting the "agents" go (if caught) after they find something on the homeowner.

Drug dealers figured that out years ago. They just hire kids to distribute the dope and when the kid gets caught, since they are minors, the law doesn't prosecute them like they would an adult.

[Carole]

If the evidence was stolen from the house by burglars, was it not obtained illegally and without a warrant? How could that stand up in court?

Speaking strictly about the legality here with full realization that the guy arrested is a creep.

[kylejack]

If the evidence was stolen from the house by burglars, was it not obtained illegally and without a warrant? How could that stand up in court?

Speaking strictly about the legality here with full realization that the guy arrested is a creep.
Because evidence can be obtained illegally if it wasn't the police or people working on directions from the police.

[Dr.3D]

If the evidence was stolen from the house by burglars, was it not obtained illegally and without a warrant? How could that stand up in court?

Speaking strictly about the legality here with full realization that the guy arrested is a creep.

Only if you believe he is guilty. Since when is a person guilty till proven innocent?

Oh yeah, I forgot..... they can now kill people without proving them guilty.

[pcosmar]

Speaking strictly about the legality here with full realization that the guy arrested is a creep.

So the accusation by an admitted thief is proof of guilt.

:(

[specsaregood]

So the accusation by an admitted thief is proof of guilt.
:(

The government acuses people all the time.

[teacherone]

weird.

[Humanae Libertas]

If you're a common criminal, you get protected by the police -- ah the good 'ol Al Capone days.

[John F Kennedy III]

Apparently, pedophiles do. Oh, and folks that are "curious" like Pete Townsend.

Yeaup... I think there's enough evidence here to support a drone attack - Obama, what's your take? Sexual terrorist? No due process necessary? Ok, take em out.

This happened in my county. Please no drone attacks *crosses fingers that Obama doesn't get word of this*

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If the evidence was stolen from the house by burglars, was it not obtained illegally and without a warrant? How could that stand up in court?

Warrants are only required by police or agents of the government.

Plus they got a warrant after the robbery and raided his house and found who knows what.

[pcosmar]

Warrants are only required by police or agents of the government.

Plus they got a warrant after the robbery and raided his house and found who knows what.

So your are OK with having your house searched after strangers break in and have had access to all your stuff?

And find "who knows what"?

[Carehn]

So why don't the cops just hire teens to rob people all the time? They should have got in trouble as well.

I would put money down right now that soon cops will be paying cash to get people to rob you.

[aGameOfThrones]

Who's to say those law abiding citizens who are not thieves(police did not press charges against the two thievesheroes) didn't plant said evidence collected by our protectors? I mean, I could break into your house, install who knows what and later confess my great deed to our protectors that I found said things while I was looking for public treasure.

[sorianofan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89MBvJR6DCY

[Jingles]

I'm so confused on how to look at this case. Some people are bringing up, "They planted it to get the guy in trouble" or whatever. I really don't think that's the case. It is obviously wrong to steal property, but I can completely understand that if they found such things on that guy's CDs that they would turn themselves in to get that guy. I mean they obviously would have gotten away with the crime if they didn't turn themselves in. They did it because this dude was a pedophile.

[dannno]

I'm so confused on how to look at this case. Some people are bringing up, "They planted it to get the guy in trouble" or whatever. I really don't think that's the case. It is obviously wrong to steal property, but I can completely understand that if they found such things on that guy's CDs that they would turn themselves in to get that guy. I mean they obviously would have gotten away with the crime if they didn't turn themselves in. They did it because this dude was a pedophile.

It's the whole innocent before being proven guilty concept.. you can't prove it was his if these people who have admitted to being dishonest by stealing came in and had access to his computer and whatnot.

What if it was a business competitor who hired these kids to plant this on him? What if police did it because of his political beliefs or letters he was writing to the paper about their department? There are a multitude of scenarios where people might try and frame someone like this.

As others have brought up, when kids get charged with crimes they get very little punishment, so often times adults will pay kids to commit crimes like selling drugs or whatever.

If the cops were behind it, they could have had immunity from the beginning.

Or maybe the guy is a pedophile.. but if you assume he is guilty and this becomes normal, then suddenly that is a floodgate whereby people can frame others very easily. That is why you don't want to set the precedent.

Not to mention even if he is guilty, unless he produced it himself or paid the people who produced it, it's a victimless crime.

[pcosmar]

I'm so confused on how to look at this case.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The security of his home was violated. First and foremost. Any Alleged Evidence found there after this fact is compromised, and therefore inadmissible in a court.

These same thieves had access to his computers. Any evidence on the computers must also be assumed to be compromised.
The fact that admitted thieves were released without charges is also questionable.

The fact that the man reported the break in and stolen disks is also a point of question.

Stockard had reported the items stolen.
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-burglars-stumble-upon-mans-child-porn-stash-turn-him-in-20111005,0,1755920.story

[Rael]

First I wish they would distinguish between child pornography and teenage pornography, because they don't, and that is a huge distinction. Someone who has pornography of actual kids under 14 is a completely different class of individual than someone who has pornography of high school age girls. Girls in high school have plenty of sex, kids in elementary school don't. While people may be generally disgusted by both, one is much more natural than the other. However realistically possessing either one is kinda stupid considering how much trouble you can get in.

Second of all, possessing any type of child pornography does not in and of itself hurt anybody. It is a victimless crime. I think it actually reduces the chances of pedophiles acting out on their impulses.

If he made any of it then he is guilty of child abuse. If he bought any of it from pornographers then he is funding child pornography and guilty of child abuse. Otherwise he had no part in abusing any children.

Agreed.