Child porn charges are dismissed (Judge ruled police search not legally justified)

[catgirl]

Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette

WORCESTER — A judge’s ruling that an April 12 police search of Paul V. Burdulis’ Burncoat Street home was not legally justified led to the dismissal yesterday of child pornography charges against Mr. Burdulis.

Indictments charging the 39-year-old Mr. Burdulis with two counts of possessing child pornography were dismissed yesterday in Worcester Superior Court at the request of Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III and with Mr. Burdulis’ consent. Mr. Reilly told Judge John S. McCann that Judge C. Jeffrey Kinder’s Dec. 29 allowance of a defense motion to suppress evidence left the prosecution without a case against Mr. Burdulis.

-snip-

The sweep led him to a computer room, where a computer was on. The officer saw on the computer what appeared to be a live Web cam broadcast of a fully clothed boy who appeared to be 12 to 14 years old and an “away message” that made reference to masturbation.

-snip-

Police later said they were sifting through several thousand images of hundreds of young boys engaged in sex acts that were taken from Mr. Burdulis’ computer.

Read more: http://www.telegram.com/article/20090123/NEWS/901230604/1008/RSS01&source=rss

---

This is outrageous. To dismiss the case because there was no evidence of a medical emergency,
even though the guy was taken away by ambulance. And what about his driving while intoxicated
and nearly forcing someone off the road? This scumbag should be removed from society (in jail).

I hope this is pursued.

[Somawas]

1. Read that article again.

There was no evidence of his engaging in any drunk driving.
No evidence of any medical emergency.

The cops pretty much barged in, uninvited, based on the vaguest of suspicions.

The Fourth Amendment matters.

[JeanGrey]

3. Tell that to the next raped and expolited child.

[atreides1]

4. I Begin to Understand

The new American concepts of the US Constitution.

It only counts for some and not for others, based on what one believes is appropriate!


Didn't we just get rid of an administration that practiced this belief?

[Somawas]

5. Gladly. The Fourth Amendment matters.

If you want your rights measured by results, keep Bush around. This guy is a bad man.
Our system frees bad men whose rights are violated.
In the meantime, this guy will be on the top of the suspect list for kid porn, etc. forever.
And the article in no way indicates that he has raped or exploited any child.

[catgirl]

7. child porn isn't child exploitation?

Thousands of pictures were found on his computer. I am the first to defend
one's legal privacy, but I side with the cops here. The childrens protection
is more important than what this asshole judge perception of the law.

[Somawas]

10. Again. Measuring one's rights by what was found.

It is a logical fallacy. There was absolutely nothing resembling probable cause here.

[Codeine]

24. No. The Constitution and the protections it provides

will always and forever trump our need for safety. That's what we've been telling the Bushites for the last 8 years -- it shames me that we have to remind our own.

[Realityhack]

25. Apparently you are far from first. n/t

[Abacus]

13. "Video games for children and a tripod were seen in a bedroom. "

The contents of the bedroom imply that rape or exploitation already had or at some point would have occurred. It kills me to have to agree with the judge on this.

[JeanGrey]

20. Then I hope they appoint you the counselor to the kids that

are used in his child porn.

[jberryhill]

17. And tell it to the next folks shot when police enter their home

Unauthorized home entry results in mayhem as well.

[JeanGrey]

21. Of course.

[catgirl]

6. The guy said he had been drinking

I think that is evidence enough that he engaged in drinking and driving. They were called
because he was weaving (could indicate a heart attack, seizure...) and they couldn't
rouse him when they found him on the floor. The keys were still in the door.

I read the article. Perhaps you need to read it again. Obviously you are on the judge's
side (or the child porn guy's) side, but please don't dispute the facts.

[Somawas]

11. Not quite.

Here is what the article says:

Police went to Mr. Burdulis’ home at 87 Burncoat St. about 5 p.m. April 12 after determining that a Jeep Wrangler that had reportedly been driven in an erratic manner on Interstate 290, nearly forcing another driver off the road, was registered to him.

Judge Kinder found the following facts:

Officer Christopher Breeds found the vehicle in question parked in the driveway at 87 Burncoat St. with the engine off, the lights on and a pair of slippers on the driver’s side floor. There was no evidence that the vehicle had been damaged or that anyone occupying it had been injured.

A car registered to him had been driven erratically. He had been drinking (which he says only after the cops awake him after illegally entering his home). That is not evidence that he had been driving.

[jberryhill]

18. To be clear....

They were called because a car registered to him was reported to have been seen weaving, not because he was seen driving a car that was weaving.

Obviously, he could only have said he'd been drinking after they entered the house.

So, to be clear, if I know the license plate number of your car, then I can call the police, tell them I saw that car weaving, and they can enter your house if you don't answer the door at night. Is that all it takes?

[JeanGrey]

22. Sure. My son was driving drunk, wrecked his car and walked

home. Two hours later they came and arrested him for DUI. They never saw him drive it but they sure as hell made it stick. A friend was passed out in his truck drunk with the keys in the ignition, and guess what he got DUI too!

[zbdent]

2. they misspelled Limbaugh ...

[MadHound]

8. Nice to see somebody upholding the Fourth Amendment

Yes, this is controversial since it involves child porn, but the fact of the matter is that the Constitution applies to everybody. If we start picking and choosing who gets the benefit of the Constitution simply based on how heinous we believe the potential crime to be, then pretty soon none of us with have the benefit of the Constitution.

For those who are outraged that this guy is walking away from this, consider the fact that the police will have him under surveillance and suspicion for a long while now. Hopefully they can catch him red handed and in a Constitutional manner.

[catgirl]

12. The police in Worcester are inept

They probably won't catch him doing anything.

[MadHound]

14. Then that's the cops problem

Well, OK, the cops' and the citizens' problem. But be that as it may, we shouldn't be shredding the Fourth Amendment just because of inept cops.

[Posteritatis]

16. But - but - but - the ends justify the means! The constitution says that! Right? Right? (nt)

[DCKit]

9. This guy was soooooo drunk he left his keys in the front door,

yet he had the dexterity and presence of mind to log onto some little boys cam-chat before passing out on the floor? Seems to me that by "erring" in favor of the fourth amendment, the judge made the correct call. If the guys PC was already on or not password protected, it would have been far too easy for the PoPo to download that crap. I've even heard of one or two cases where they've even planted guns or drugs on people.

I would love to see your recommendations for relieving society of those who actually abuse these kids and take pictures/video, catgirl. However, remember that even if there were only two of them left in the world, they'd keep doing it and posting their trash all over the tubes. Most of the time they're not even interested in making a dime, just the bragging rights.

As you say, they're going to be keeping an eye on this guy, and I wouldn't be surprised if he were run out of Worcester sooner than later, regardless of whether he downloaded kiddy porn.

[Zhade]

23. "One or two cases"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Man, it's been found that some departments TRAIN cops in how to plant "evidence".

[DCKit]

29. Sorry....

forgot my :sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

15. Sometimes defending the civil right of all gives cover to those with malice.

Its a very unfortunate unintended consequence of liberty.

[Xithras]

19. At least the neighborhood now knows what he is.

Good call by the judge for kicking this case, but those cops should be fired for blowing this case. The IMPROPER ACTIONS OF THE POLICE set this man free, not any decision by the judge. Arguments against this decision basically boil down to "it's OK for the police to break the law if it gets a bad person off the street."

Personally, I voted Obama to help get rid of that kind of America. We're a land of laws, and nobody is exempt from them...not even the police.

[Pavulon]

26. Put up pictures, xerox copier

everywhere. Be sure his job knows, in the store, in the bank. Everywhere he moves he should be shunned, anywhere he moves. No conviction is one thing, tolerance of him is another.

Personally people who view this shit are scum and should be charged with a crime and exposed. People who CREATE it should die in prison. Since a excavator, 22lr round in the brain, and a bag of quicklime are not acceptable.

Fuck that piece of shit.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

27. sarcasm?

[Pavulon]

28. None. Exploiters should be shunned

just because he did not get a conviction does not mean he is innocent. Letting everyone know what he did is not illegal.

Again I have ZERO tolerance for people who molest kids. It destroys lives.

He should put a gun in his mouth and do the world a favor.

[MadHound]

31. Nice to see you embrace that whole innocent until proven guilty concept.

NOT:eyes:

It's attitudes like yours that lead to vigilante justice and to people getting murdered.

Frankly I hope that you do follow through with this, the person in question would have a great case to sue you into oblivion with.

Haven't you heard, we're trying to return to the rule of law in this country.

[Dr. Strange]

30. Why should the cops be fired?

I think they did the right thing going into the house. If this guy had been injured and the cops had left the scene, I'd call that negligence.

[Gin]

32. his name and address have been made public....his neighbors know what the

police found......even though he's not in jail....he will be subjected to lots of public scrutiny.....IMO

[Dr. Strange]

33. That's true.

But that information was probably released by attorneys. Maybe we should do what Britain does, and not release names until someone's been convicted.

On the other hand, if he's really been doing this, maybe the public scrutiny is a good thing.