OCCK

Chapter 11: 56 Day Rule Violation

In order to obtain the April 29, 2011 suppression orders from the 48th district court, the accompanying Ex Parte Motion to Clarify Order of Suppression of the October 28, 2008 search warrant and affidavit filed by the Oakland County Prosecutor states as follows:

4. That this Court has issued sixteen orders continuing the suppression of the search warrant and affidavit in this matter. The last issued March 23, 2011, and to continue to in force to May 18, 2011.

The expiration date on the fifteenth Order of Suppression expired on March 7, 2011, 840 days after October 28, 2009 Search Warrant Affidavit was issued. The sixteenth Order was not issued until March 23, 2011. Obviously, one or more of the 15 orders of suppression were issued after the expiration date of a 56 day period. Whenever the first order was not renewed within the 56 day period it can no longer be suppressed. This occurred all subsequent orders of suppression were improperly entered. The statute contains no provisions allowing the prosecutor to obtain ex parte orders once the 56 day renewal period is breached. Is my interpretation correct? Did the Oakland County Prosecutor advise the 48th district court of this interpretation when the order was entered?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

4 Comments

  1. Meghan

    Mr. King,

    So much of what I’ve read about this situation disturbs me to the point where I truly cannot get it out of my head.

    I am wondering, first, if you have any ability to appeal the dismissals of your suits to the Michigan Supreme Court or otherwise? It seems that as long as your legal efforts are within the jurisdiction of the OC prosecutor, it is impossible to make progress. It also seems that any fair and reasonable judge would agree that their actions are not permitted under the statute. Reading articles such as this one, where the OC prosecutor is so patronizing about your efforts to uncover the truth, truly infuriate me:
    http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20150106/father-of-oakland-county-child-killer-victim-files-lawsuit-against-prosecutor

    Second, given that Christopher Busch was known from his past arrests to have many pedophile cohorts, how could hairs on the victim’s bodies that do not match his DNA serve to exonerate him? They could clearly be from an accomplice and do not necessarily have any bearing on his involvement. It seems completely illogical that DNA matter that does not match Busch should impact his viability as a suspect in any way, given that a group of perpetrators was likely involved. Have you been able to direct this question to the law enforcement powers that be an receive any kind of an answer?

    You and your family will always be in my thoughts and prayers, and I so deeply hope that you find the truth. I’m so sorry for all you’ve been though.

    Reply
    1. Barry King Author

      Hello Meghan,

      My name is Michelle Boehm , I help manage Barry King’s social media presence. I will make sure your questions and concerns get to him immediately. Thank you for caring and staying involved in helping us fight this case.

      Reply
  2. Joan Croft

    I well remember the day your beloved son was buried. I lived right behind the church where his funeral was held. What happened to your family truly impacted every Birmingham parent and child from then on. We will never forget Timmy King. I will always remember your supreme effort to uncover the truth and hope someday we will all know what it is.

    Reply
  3. Teri Lampron

    Mr. King, I do not believe your interpretation is entirely correct. I believe what we are looking at is much scarier than failure to consistently file within the proscribed 56 day deadline a motion for each subsequent order of suppression.

    The problem is that we aren’t looking at an order to suppress search warrant, etc. under MCL 780,651. What we are looking at is an Order to Clarify orders of suppression…. and an Order to Suppress the prosecutor’s motion for same.

    Based on the language in the Order Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011:

    “It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the Search Warrant, affidavit and tabulation….are suppressed as a nonpublic record in accordance with the orders previously issued by this Court under MCL 780,651.

    It is further ordered and adjudged that this Court’s intent in issuing Suppression orders was and is that the search warrant and affidavit in this matter be suppressed as a non public record with this Court and with any police department, law enforcement agency, task force or individual person including any County Prosecutor’s Office and/or their agents, representatives, employees while this matter is an open and ongoing investigation.”

    It was an end run around subsections 8 and 9 of the search warrant statute:

    “This subsection and subsection (8) do not affect a person’s right to obtain a copy of a search warrant affidavit from the prosecuting attorney or law enforcement agency under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. MCL 780.651(9).”

    To prevent you from obtaining a copy via your FOIA suit against the MSP or via a valid FOIA request through the Wayne County Prosector’s Office and virtually anyone else. Obviously Kym Worthy’s office would have a copy in their files, as would any number of law enforcement and task force agents. She effectively prohibited them from complying with any FOIA request you might have–by right–made through them.

    So it seems to me that this was overreach by the prosecutor and that the district judge went beyond her authority, jurisdiction and the letter of the law (the search warrant statute) by inserting said language in the order — and retroactively.

    Note too, to support her ruling, the Judge in the Order cites good cause having been shown, in part, “to protect the privacy of the innocent persons currently residing in the residence.” That’s not covered by the Statute, which allows for the “privacy or safety of a victim or witness.” The identity of the residents of the home at that time could easily be discerned via a property and other public records search — so that’s a very weak argument in my book — especially considering the fact that the identity of the residents weren’t even included in the Affidavit.

    This blatant abuse of power by the prosecutor and that the judge(s) went along with it is unsettling and, if I were you, I’d be looking into this further and possibly filing a grievance with the judicial tenure commission against this judge.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *