Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WSVN Miami)   Director of the anonymous tipline Crime Stoppers thrown in jail ... for refusing to reveal the name and personal information of an anonymous tipster   (wsvn.com) divider line 60
    More: Florida, Crime Stoppers, contempt of court  
•       •       •

7646 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2014 at 9:21 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-15 08:01:55 AM  
Except he didn't go to jail....
 
2014-03-15 09:02:55 AM  
He ate it.  HAHAHA nice touch.  He did the right thing.
 
2014-03-15 09:25:26 AM  
Wow, a real hero steps up..
 
2014-03-15 09:26:39 AM  

OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....


Yet.

I applaud what this guy is doing. He's keeping the integrity of the program alive. We need more people like him.
 
2014-03-15 09:26:47 AM  
I might have missed it, but why bring the name on a piece of paper in the first place?
 
2014-03-15 09:28:22 AM  

OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....


"According to sources, Masten will be held behind bars for 14 days."

That... kinda sounds like jail.
 
2014-03-15 09:30:28 AM  
The prosecutors, police, and judges must not think the information they gain from crime stoppers is of any value- because if they 'win', they'll get no more of it.
 
2014-03-15 09:30:29 AM  

Kelwen: I might have missed it, but why bring the name on a piece of paper in the first place?


Yeah, bravo for not coughing it up (so to speak), but why risk bringing it *at all*?
 
2014-03-15 09:31:00 AM  

Kelwen: I might have missed it, but why bring the name on a piece of paper in the first place?


I'm guessing for dramatic effect. And I'm ok with that, good on him for doing the right thing.
 
2014-03-15 09:32:23 AM  
Snitches get stitches.
 
2014-03-15 09:33:00 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....

"According to sources, Masten will be held behind bars for 14 days."

That... kinda sounds like jail.


The article's a bit sketchy. What they mean is they're going to force him to work as a bartender for two weeks.
 
2014-03-15 09:34:41 AM  
I'm not sure how they can argue that the person who left a tip counts as an 'accuser'. They're not using the tip as evidence, are they? The tip is just what led them to the scene of the crime.

Good on this guy.
 
2014-03-15 09:36:41 AM  
Why do they collect it in the first place?
 
2014-03-15 09:38:05 AM  
Hero tag out sick?
 
2014-03-15 09:39:10 AM  
If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"
 
2014-03-15 09:42:23 AM  

Kelwen: I might have missed it, but why bring the name on a piece of paper in the first place?


It was probably just part of a heap of paperwork that he brought.
 
2014-03-15 09:42:44 AM  

EvilEgg: Why do they collect it in the first place?


They pay cash rewards if your tip leads to a conviction
 
2014-03-15 09:43:03 AM  
...and yet, if a police officer gets a tip from an informant that they want to keep anonymous, they aren't threatened with jail for refusing to reveal the name of that informant...

(Or even if that "informant" really exists, when you get right down to it.)
 
2014-03-15 09:46:14 AM  

adm_crunch: If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"


Then it would spit in their faces.
 
2014-03-15 09:47:23 AM  
I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.
 
2014-03-15 09:49:50 AM  
So for a cocaine possession case they are willing to nullify a program that presumably has led to multiple arrests for violent acts?  Not saying to whitewash the possession charge, but there is a definite lack of logic going on.  Also, if they did squeeze the name out of them wouldn't this impact other programs around the country that take anonymous tips?

What a misguided judgement, in my opinion.
 
2014-03-15 09:50:24 AM  

adm_crunch: If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"


And their weeners would be - "you don't have to leave it but that's the only way we can send you the reward money."
 
2014-03-15 09:51:21 AM  

adm_crunch: If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"


Ok, ok, just the tip.
 
2014-03-15 09:52:44 AM  
And the justice system takes another step towards third world junta.
 
2014-03-15 09:53:36 AM  

TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


The article said it was in Miami-Dade. Otherwise I would have assumed the judge's precedent was, "Ahm the king of this hare coundy, and have ben fer 50 yehrs. So y'all better obey mah orders!"
 
2014-03-15 10:00:36 AM  
This guy is an honest to goodness hero!*

*Unless of course the "tip" was really an illegal wiretap by Police/DEA/NSA that they simply routed through an anonymous tipline. In which case this guy might still be a hero if he isn't aware of the actual source, but that he is a former police chief casts a little doubt on that.
 
2014-03-15 10:01:09 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....

"According to sources, Masten will be held behind bars for 14 days."

That... kinda sounds like jail.


"Masten was allowed to go home until Thursday, March 20, when a hearing has been set. His 14-day sentence has been stayed until the case can be addressed.", but the article was updated after you posted, mebbe they forgot something.
 
2014-03-15 10:01:44 AM  

TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this



I'll wager money that there's some kind of relationship between the judge and defendant that hasn't come to light yet.

"Put my little, snowflake grand-niece in jail for a tiny bit of coke?  I don't think so!!!"
 
2014-03-15 10:06:06 AM  

TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.



This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.
 
2014-03-15 10:09:04 AM  

Snuffybud: LeoffDaGrate: OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....

"According to sources, Masten will be held behind bars for 14 days."

That... kinda sounds like jail.

"Masten was allowed to go home until Thursday, March 20, when a hearing has been set. His 14-day sentence has been stayed until the case can be addressed.", but the article was updated after you posted, mebbe they forgot something.


Reading and reading comprehension are not for everyone.  Sometimes it's hard to keep focused on these short articles and read all the way to the end.  It's rude of you just to respond with an exact quote contained in the article that completely debunks someone's statement.  That's just rude to bring facts and sentences directly from the source article into a debate like that.

1/10, I gave you one point in case you're hot.
 
2014-03-15 10:16:56 AM  

TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


There is no provision in the law for this program, or for keeping whatever records they have confidential.  It's just a private non-profit like many other community organizations.  Unless you tell it to your wife, your priest, your lawyer, or your doctor, it's not really confidential.  The reason this rarely comes up is that either the person making the call never really divulges their true identity or the identity of that individual isn't relevant to the proceeding and not discoverable as evidence.  Why it would be relevant in this particular case isn't spelled out in the article other than to say the defense lawyer reallllly wants to know.
 
2014-03-15 10:17:16 AM  
Judge and prosecutors deserve the Florida tag, but in this case I think the Hero tag was more appropriate (for the Crime Stoppers director)
 
2014-03-15 10:47:28 AM  

lennavan: adm_crunch: If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"

And their weeners would be - "you don't have to leave it but that's the only way we can send you the reward money."


Don't they give you a (case) number, so you can go collect your reward and still remain somewhat anonymous?
 
2014-03-15 10:48:09 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.


tip call about cocaine possession + actual cocaine possession = legitimate tip call
 
2014-03-15 10:51:00 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.


This bears repeating.

You should never be able to conceal the articulable facts that make up probable cause or reasonable suspicion. If an anonymous call is sufficient to create PC then wave goodbye to the 4th.
 
2014-03-15 10:53:19 AM  

Smackledorfer: If an anonymous call is sufficient to create PC then wave goodbye to the 4th.


Objection, speculation.  Nobody is going to get a search warrant based on an anonymous tip, it's merely the potential beginning of an investigation.
 
2014-03-15 10:53:36 AM  

felching pen: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.

tip call about cocaine possession + actual cocaine possession = legitimate tip call


The results of a search are not the justification for a search.

Surely you understand that?
 
2014-03-15 10:57:48 AM  

nekom: Smackledorfer: If an anonymous call is sufficient to create PC then wave goodbye to the 4th.

Objection, speculation.  Nobody is going to get a search warrant based on an anonymous tip, it's merely the potential beginning of an investigation.


They can get search warrants and perform warrantless searches from statements made by witnesses who are not anonymous. It sounds to me like crimestoppers wants it both ways.

But you are correct, as usual no one can discuss anything with 100% certainty based on incomplete reporting.
 
2014-03-15 11:00:24 AM  

techgeek07: Hero tag out sick?


indy_kid: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this
I'll wager money that there's some kind of relationship between the judge and defendant that hasn't come to light yet.
"Put my little, snowflake grand-niece in jail for a tiny bit of coke?  I don't think so!!!"


Came here to say al of this. In this case, Hero tag should have trumped Florida tag.

Or maybe the Florida tag was meant for the judge.
 
2014-03-15 11:01:29 AM  
Blegh,  whatever, fark this snitch facilitator.
 
2014-03-15 11:07:11 AM  
If they didn't have probable cause without the tip, then they shouldn't have made the arrest.
 
2014-03-15 11:15:22 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OregonVet: Except he didn't go to jail....

"According to sources, Masten will be held behind bars for 14 days."

That... kinda sounds like jail.


No, he has to tend bar at a TGIFridays for 2 weeks.  Cruel and unusual, I say.
 
2014-03-15 11:33:47 AM  

Chronomorte: So for a cocaine possession case they are willing to nullify a program that presumably has led to multiple arrests for violent acts?  Not saying to whitewash the possession charge, but there is a definite lack of logic going on.  Also, if they did squeeze the name out of them wouldn't this impact other programs around the country that take anonymous tips?

What a misguided judgement, in my opinion.


Article sucks a bit, doesn't really say WHAT the tip is.

Was the tip the sole basis for the search warrant?
 
2014-03-15 11:58:19 AM  
The video I saw made me laugh my ass off. The guy has many good points for why he did what he did and will do what he's going to have to do. I like this dude.
 
2014-03-15 11:59:48 AM  
To me it sounds like the judge got her panties in a wad because somebody didn't bow down to her.  When she asked for the name, a simple no may have sufficed  But he basically said not only no, but fark no and ate the paper in front of her to emphasize the point.  She sees that as a challenge to her authority and has him charged.
 
2014-03-15 12:01:15 PM  
Police chief now wondering why they are not getting anymore anonymous tips.

Cops are not rocket surgeons.
 
2014-03-15 12:05:30 PM  

Smackledorfer: felching pen: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.

tip call about cocaine possession + actual cocaine possession = legitimate tip call

The results of a search are not the justification for a search.

Surely you understand that?


That cuts both ways. There isn't any reason for the judge to suspect that the identity of the tipster will lead to any discovery pertinent to the defence. If the tip was for "child pornography" and then what was found was some weed, but no CP, then I could perhaps see this POSSIBILY being relevant.

I don't know, maybe some variation of that is actually what happened, but the article doesn't clearly spell it out.
 
2014-03-15 01:03:05 PM  
Three greatest words in the English language when dealing with cops: "I don't know."
 
2014-03-15 01:08:03 PM  

TwistedFark: Smackledorfer: felching pen: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: TwistedFark: I don't understand why this judge is doing this, surely there must be a precedent here because this cannot be the first time an anonymous tip through this line has led to a criminal case.

It seems to me that violating the anonymity of the tipster in question here would basically make the entire program worthless.

Also, this is not a civil case, so the tipster is not "the accuser" and the defendant has no right to face them. The judge is completely off base here. The tip merely establishes probable cause for the police to execute a search warrant and an arrest. The state would be her accuser, based off the evidence they collected in their search.


This judge wanted to review the information to determine whether it was discoverable.  I wonder if there's some question here about the legitimacy of the tip.

I understand the concern for getting snitches killed, but at the same time if you're going to use this info to establish probable cause there ought to be some way for the court to confirm where the info is actually coming from - to check that the snitches are people who aren't cops and actually exist and so on.

tip call about cocaine possession + actual cocaine possession = legitimate tip call

The results of a search are not the justification for a search.

Surely you understand that?

That cuts both ways. There isn't any reason for the judge to suspect that the identity of the tipster will lead to any discovery pertinent to the defence. If the tip was for "child pornography" and then what was found was some weed, but no CP, then I could perhaps see this POSSIBILY being relevant.

I don't know, maybe some variation of that is actually what happened, but the article doesn't clearly spell it out.


Wrong again unless I misread you. If a cop gets pc to search for A but stumbles upon B in the process, then B is admissable evidence.

Levels of suspicion are neither supported nor invalidated by the results of the actions taken.

Cops get to search based on reasons to search. It doesn't matter if they find what they are looking for.
 
2014-03-15 02:23:56 PM  

Clint_Torres: lennavan: adm_crunch: If I called an anonymous tip line, and they asked for my name, I'm pretty sure my Weeners would be, "Are you shiatting me?"

And their weeners would be - "you don't have to leave it but that's the only way we can send you the reward money."

Don't they give you a (case) number, so you can go collect your reward and still remain somewhat anonymous?


Yes. The ones around here give you the option of giving your name or getting a codename assigned to you that you can use later to collect the reward if it gets that far.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report