The Gabby Petito case has been forefront in much of the national media. For those of you who have avoided that frenzy, she disappeared under suspicious circumstances while hiking with her boyfriend in Wyoming. Because the boyfriend lives here in Florida, I’m interested in how the media is reporting the legalities of the Florida part of the investigation because it’s indicative of how the shoddy way the media covers such cases.
An example. The media trumpeted a “retired Dade County detective”, not involved in the investigation, who publicly criticized the police department in North Port, Florida (where Petito’s boyfriend lives) for not immediately getting a search warrant for his home, computer and cell phone when Petito first disappeared. Like far too many law enforcement officers, that detective is frighteningly ignorant of the law.
As a retired Florida prosecutor/law professor, I taught search and seizure (4th Amendment) law to prosecutors and law enforcement officers throughout the State for over 30 years. Despite myths perpetuated on TV, which some real-world police officers believe, search warrants are not easily obtained. They must be issued by a Judge according to strict constitutional and statutory rules.
The Florida Constitution controls searches in Florida. It expressly binds Florida courts to decisions of the United States Supreme Court which has repeatedly said searches of private residences, computers, and cell phones are subject the very highest standards of compliance with constitutional protections. The Florida Supreme Court says those same high standards apply to Florida’s search and seizure statute.
Chapter 933, Florida Statutes, dictates when and how search warrants can be used by police. If those requirements are not strictly followed, any evidence obtained from the search (including finding Petito’s body) can be “suppressed” – meaning, it can’t be used in a prosecution. According to the US Supreme Court, that applies even if the murder and prosecution is in Wyoming where the body has now been found.
In a nutshell, the Constitution and Chapter 933, require that before a search warrant for a private residence, computer or cell phone can be issued there must have been a crime committed, and some basis to believe that evidence of that crime will be found there. In the Petito case, until her body was found there was no legal basis to believe a crime had been committed, therefore no lawful grounds to get a search warrant for the boyfriend’s home, computer or cell phone.
The “retired detective” either doesn’t know that, or doesn’t care about the law. It would be interesting to go back through his career and see how many times evidence in his cases got suppressed because of illegal searches.
Once Petito’s body was found, and the preliminary indications are that she was murdered, the North Port police promptly obtained a warrant and searched the boyfriend’s home and seized his computer. That’s the proper way to do it, rather than rush in as suggested by that “retired Dade County detective” which would have compromised any evidence found.
This is how intense media coverage can hurt criminal investigations and prosecutions. That “retired detective’s” statement prompted some media (who know no better) to pressure the North Port police to proceed prematurely.
During my career, pressure based on silly media reporting was directed at me in a couple of cases. My sound-byte response to such pressure was that investigations are not conducted to suit media deadlines or a desire to be “first with the latest development”. Our goal was to get it right the first time, not to be the first to get it.
So as I watch the media frenzy about Gabby Petito, I think of how much more difficult the prosecutor’s job will be. People with all sorts of motivations will be coming forward falsely claiming to be witnesses or have evidence. That will take time to sort out. Time that could be better spent on the actual evidence.
Media talking head “legal experts” not involved in the case (like the “retired Dade County detective”) will be commenting on, and second guessing, everything. Those “experts” are often wrong.
If the case goes to trial, an extraordinary amount of Court time will be expended selecting jurors who have not been prejudiced by the media coverage. Fortunately, based on my experience, most potential jurors have so little trust in the media they are able to set aside any pre-conceived judgments they may have formed from the coverage. But it takes time to sort them out.
Keep that in mind as you watch the media coverage of the Petito case, or any other. The only people who know the relevant facts of any case are the prosecutors, and their code of ethics strictly limits what they can say publicly before trial. Consider anything else in the media with a grain of salt. It’s as likely to be pure speculation as actual fact.