State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

[potatoflopper]

So was our wife also released on bail or is she still in the slammer? I could see nick only paying his bail and leaving her in there.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Can we get a poll for how long it'll take Nick to violate his release conditions?

Done

So was our wife also released on bail or is she still in the slammer? I could see nick only paying his bail and leaving her in there.

Both are out

 

[Barry McKockner]

Lol very

The crime lab won't see it for weeks at least. All reported amounts are in bags on some field scale.

If it was a large city, I would agree, but this is some bumblefuck 20k resident town in the middle of nowhere. I dont think their crime lab work load is that heavy, especially since they have 0 murders and most of their shit is cop heavy workloads like theft.

 

[Low IQ Doctor]

So was our wife also released on bail or is she still in the slammer? I could see nick only paying his bail and leaving her in there.

She's out. Looks like same conditions as Nick's.

 

[Crocodylus Acutus]

Considering Nick can't drink anymore, is it safe to assume that the police removed all alcohol from the Rekieta household?

 

[waffle]

If it was a large city, I would agree, but this is some bumblefuck 20k resident town in the middle of nowhere. I dont think their crime lab work load is that heavy, especially since they have 0 murders and most of their shit is cop heavy workloads like theft.

This isnt TV Most states have one central crime lab that is so backed up they hire an independent contractor if a speedy trial request is made.

 

[Anstiv]

@Useful_Mistake Is the thread poll about how long it takes for him to violate it, or how long it takes for him to get caught violating it? I could easily see him already taking a drink as soon as he got home...

 

[one or fewer posts a day]

He's not going to get locked up based on the Sentencing Guidelines, unless he has a record we don't know about. Based on his crime and non-existent record, it is presumed that he'd get a 48 month stayed sentence.

https://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines/guidelines/

So what happens to that 48 month stayed sentence when he fails a drug test? If he gets a stayed sentence, he'll absolutely keep using.

 

[Sharpeteer]

Considering Nick can't drink anymore, is it safe to assume that the police removed all alcohol from the Rekieta household?

And hopefully took all the guns too. I personally don't trust this motherfucker to not shoot a place up. In the past two days, he's proven he's capable of so much more than we (at least I) suspected. Also, just my own opinion here, but I don't trust somebody that leaves their firearms and rounds so carelessly laying around. It's like this nigga never had anyone teach him the most basic shit about gun ownership/safety, or watched a 10 minute YouTube video about it.

Lets say they didn't take all the booze. If Nick wants ANY chance of getting through this waiting period, he'll get rid of it all himself. He cannot resist any form of temptation - whether it be alcohol, white powder, or crackwhores.

 

[Boingboingboingboi]

He's going to find it extremely difficult to follow the no substances rule, especially alcohol and especially if he continues streaming for income. The only reason I can imagine he'd accept the conditions is if he simply does not have the money, or even a fraction of the money and has no way of coming up with it.

if he's not in an AA meeting or with a counsellor right now there's no way he won't get fucked up before August 20th.

 

[Crocodylus Acutus]

And hopefully took all the guns too. I personally don't trust this motherfucker to not shoot a place up. In the past two days, he's proven he's capable of so much more than we (at least I) suspected.

Lets say they didn't take all the booze. If Nick wants ANY chance of getting through this waiting period, he'll get rid of it all himself. He cannot resist any form of temptation - whether it be alcohol, white powder, or crackwhores.

Expecting Nick to affect positive personal change on his own is a fools errand sadly. This negro needs to be arrested and put on parole in order for his behavior to "improve."

 

[Irregardless]

Considering Nick can't drink anymore, is it safe to assume that the police removed all alcohol from the Rekieta household?

I would assume that since alcohol isn't a controlled substance, it wasn't used in the committal of a crime, that Nick is above the legal age to own alcoholic products, and is only barred from the consumption/intoxication of alcohol they probably didn't take it.

 

[DumbDude43]

his name is misspelled in the thread title
it's nicholas, not nickolas

 

[Crocodylus Acutus]

I would assume that since alcohol isn't a controlled substance, it wasn't used in the committal of a crime, that Nick is above the legal age to own alcoholic products, and is only barred from the consumption/intoxication of alcohol they probably didn't take it.

Yeah his ass is already drunk by now then.

 

[ye's Official KF Burner]

And it's confirmed the kids are out, right? Haven't seen too much confirming or denying probably because this shit is flying.

 

[Irregardless]

Yeah his ass is already drunk by now then.

Yea honestly they would have done him and those kids a favor just swiping that shit.

Those bottles are more likely to be broken upside his head by Kayla than they are to stay sealed on those shelves.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

I personally don't trust this motherfucker to not shoot a place up

I’d be more concerned about him offing himself. I know he’s a narc which makes him less likely to do so but if he thinks he’s actually fucked I could see his “ODD” triggering and him booting up a stream to Lowtax himself.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

@Useful_Mistake Is the thread poll about how long it takes for him to violate it, or how long it takes for him to get caught violating it? I could easily see him already taking a drink as soon as he got home...

The former.

his name is misspelled in the thread title
it's nicholas, not nickolas

No stalker child, it is you who is misspelled.

 

[Active User]

I know because of Marriage rules Kayla can't testify against Nick.

Spousal privilege is a little weaker than it's often represented as. Kayla could testify about whatever if she wanted to, she just can't be compelled to testify about everything. However, there are exceptions and cases which spousal privilege does not cover. Of the ones I remember...

• Spouse is charged with a crime against the other spouse, or a crime against a third party that was committed in the process of committing a crime against the other spouse
• Spouse is charged with a crime against their children (Neglect charge)
• Spouse is being charged with incest
• Spouse is being compelled to testify about things that happened before marriage
• Spouse is being compelled to testify about non private communications (The presence of a third party is often used to establish this, which is potentially an issue due to the swinging nonsense going on)
• Spouse is being compelled to testify about things that happened after marriage (why if we get a divorce it won't be till this stuff is over)
• The communications in question were criminal or furthering a crime (Spouses are not immune to conspiracy charges)
• The charge is human trafficking

I bolded the ones I think could prove problematic for the Rekietas, but I want to zero in on the private communications aspect: It's a bit narrower than people often think. I'll steal this next bit from a lawyer's website as an example of this.

Privilege protects only confidential "communications"​

Either spouse may assert the spousal privilege. But the privilege protects only"communications." Statements that are not communications between the spouses, such as observations by one spouse about the conduct of the other, are not privileged. For example, a court ruled that an ex-wife's testimony that there had been a verbal agreement for a drug sale between her husband and another man that she overheard during the marriage was not a "communication" as the ex-husband argued, but rather the ex-wife's observation about events. As a result, her testimony was not privileged.

And, another court ruled that a defendant's act of hiding drugs in his ex-wife's underwear during the marriage was not a "communication" and, thus, not privileged. The ex-wife was allowed to testify about her ex-husband tucking a bag of cocaine into her bra over his objections. In both of these cases, the spouses were no longer married at the time the testimony was offered. The spousal communication privilege continues after a marriage ends, but it only covers confidential communications during the marriage. The court in each case ruled that there was no "communication."

A privilege objection will likewise fail if either spouse fails to keep the communication confidential. Where one spouse shares a previously confidential communication with his best friend, he has destroyed the confidentiality required to claim the spousal communications privilege.

I'm not in Minnesota, and this is mostly off the top of my head, so take this with a grain of salt. If you want the specific Minnesota writings on the topic, here.

Subdivision 1.Competency of witnesses.​

Every person of sufficient understanding, including a party, may testify in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal, in court or before any person who has authority to receive evidence, except as provided in this subdivision:


(a) A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without the consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. This exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other, nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other or against a child of either or against a child under the care of either spouse, nor to a criminal action or proceeding in which one is charged with homicide or an attempt to commit homicide and the date of the marriage of the defendant is subsequent to the date of the offense, nor to an action or proceeding for nonsupport, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights.

 

[Low IQ Doctor]

And it's confirmed the kids are out, right? Haven't seen too much confirming or denying probably because this shit is flying.

It's doubtful we're going to get any real confirmation of that from the court since they are minors. However, it's likely that they were turned over to Kayla's family since they are somewhat local.

Theoretically, this could be a temporary measure prior to some other action by CPS but I'm really doubtful that they're going to lose complete access to their children.