Texas teen fighting efforts to retrieve slug from head

[TechBear_Seattle]

Here is an interesting case of constitutional rights.

Texas teen fighting efforts to retrieve slug from head

PORT ARTHUR, Texas — In the middle of Joshua Bush's forehead, two inches above his eyes, lies the evidence that prosecutors say could send the teenager to prison for attempted murder: a 9-mm bullet, lodged just under the skin.

Prosecutors say it will prove that Bush, 17, tried to kill the owner of a used-car lot after a robbery in July. And they have obtained a search warrant to extract the slug.

But Bush and his lawyer are fighting the removal, in a legal and medical oddity that raises questions about patient privacy and how far the government can go to solve crimes without running afoul of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The article continues at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003489915_bullet22.html

[China_cat]

1. Wouldn't that violate at least 2 amendments?

Unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.

[Ellis Wyatt]

3. that's what I'd think

Unfortunately, I think this kid is in the right (legally, that is).

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. Is giving up the slug actually self-incrimination?

I'm not sure.

Unreasonable search and seizure is probably their strongest leg to stand.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. No

The police got two different search warrants for the slug; the fact that it is under his skin should be no different than if it were in his pocket or on a shelf in his home. Likewise, it is not self-incrimination.

The bullet has been under his skin for long enough that it would take surgery to extract. The Courts have long held that people have a constitutional right not to be subjected to surgical procedures against their will. The Courts have also recognized a right to medical privacy.

[Warpy]

6. The Fifth would seem to apply in this case

and one could certainly make the case that it also involves unreasonable search and seizure since all surgery carries risk. Even if the bullet is right under the skin and can be removed with a simple, superficial incision, there's always risk from infection.

Unless he voluntarily allows surgery, I don't think they should be allowed to proceed.

[Llewlladdwr]

13. How would the Fifth apply?

We're talking about evidence here, not testimony. While you can't be compelled to provide testimony against your own interest the Fifth certainly doesn't allow you to destroy or hide evidence.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. And therein lies the dilemma

You are not allowed to hide evidence. But you can not be forced to submit to a surgical procedure. So what happens when the evidence is hidden in a way that requires a surgical procedure to retrieve?

[Warpy]

17. It would be either the fifth or the fourth, sorry

If he needs to give permission for the surgery, it's the fifth.

If the cops find a crooked doc to dig it out without his permission, it's the fourth. Plus, it's an assault charge for the doc.

[aquart]

2. And his name is Bush. Oh, the irony.

[Fleshdancer]

7. I don't understand....

So I read the entire article to see why the police think that retrieving this article would prove his guilt:

"Investigators say that Bush was part of a group of gang members who broke into a used-car lot and tried to steal vehicles. According to police, Bush tried to shoot businessman Alan Olive, and when Olive returned fire, a bullet struck the teenager and burrowed into the soft, fatty tissue of his forehead."

So, um, I don't get it. If they retrieve the bullet and prove that it did indeed come from the gun that Alan Olive was using, how exactly does this prove that the teenager tried to shoot him while it happened? Constitutional dilemma aside, I really don't see how this bullet can prove anything other than the fact that he was shot. They already have him for attempted robbery, why do they need this bullet exactly?

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. It backs up Olive's testimony

Olive claims he shot the person shooting at him. The presence of a bullet from Olive's gun in Bush's body would be evidence of Olive's claim. In addition, commission of a crime involving guns is much more serious -- and thus carries a much harsher penalty -- than commission of a crime that does not involve guns.

If justice is to be served.... :shrug:

[Fleshdancer]

10. so....

would all the gang members then receive harsher penalties or just the teen with the bullet in his head? It just seems like finding bullets that don't belong to Olive's gun would be just as incriminating, wouldn't it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I've no idea; I'm not a lawyer

I just watch a lot of "Law and Order." :hi:

[Fleshdancer]

12. rofl! well thanks for the clarification regardless!

:rofl:

:hi:

[Selatius]

15. At the least, it would determine Bush was at the crime scene.

The testimony in front of the jury would show the used-car dealer shot somebody, and the evidence backing up that testimony would be the bullet...from the intruder's head.

[Fleshdancer]

16. but his buddies have already confirmed his presence n/t

[Selatius]

18. Then that leaves just two questions.

Is it necessary to remove the bullet to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Bush was at the crime scene?
And is it violating his constitutional rights if we remove the bullet through surgical procedure against his will? The second question is the killer one, in my view.

[Fleshdancer]

19. Exactly....

I'm obviously no expert here but I don't think removing the bullet against his will is even neccessary which makes your second question that much more scary.

[Selatius]

20. It's a bit cloudier than that because he has two possible crimes on his head.

The police say that Bush shot at the car dealer and that the dealer then returned fire and hit the suspect. The issue isn't whether he was involved in armed robbery, which he will likely be convicted of anyway. (His fellow gang members ratted him out, and he admitted it himself) The issue is whether he was guilty of attempted murder on top of the armed robbery charge.

But as I said, the second question is the killer question. This could actually end up being a landmark US Supreme Court case.

[Catherine Vincent]

8. Glad I read the article.

When the heading said slug, I thought of one of these things:



ewwww...

[nam78_two]

21. Me too....