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

[feral cat #6385]

I could believe that. Kayla the crack whore or one of her bulls gets pissed a kid is begging for food. She throws some cocaine/drugs at the kid in anger and the kid inhales enough/swallows enough they get sick. This may or not be the same story where Nick cancelled a stream because "someone close to him" needed to be watched all night.

Finally shall the skunks and raccoons take their revenge on the Rail King.

It's THEIR house now friend.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

There's something I have been wondering about, concerning your right to remain silent and the jury not being allowed to take that into account:
What happens if I talk to the police about certain things and remain silent on others. Can the jury take the partial silence into account and assume that what I refused to say was bad for me? Or would that violate the 5th amendment.

A few things:

First, the 5th Amendment applies when in custody/control or at trial.

Second, you have to be specific that you are invoking your rights under the 5A, and in that case if in a police interrogation, questioning should stop.

Third, the 5A extends only (in this context) to self-incriminating statements - which includes answers that would in themselves support a conviction and those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute. It doesn't apply to other things.

Fourth, if you're a criminal defendant on the stand, you can't selectively invoke the 5A. That's different than for witnesses or in civil cases. If you choose to testify, you're waiving that right - otherwise what's your purpose up there? You can't invoke it on cross-examination if you choose to testify in your criminal trial.

Fifth, the 5th prohibits a prosecutor from using its invocation as evidence of guilt. Specifically 5A says you can't be compelled to testify in a way that would be self-incriminating, which means invoking it can't be used by the state to evidence your guilt. Juries are instructed they shouldn't infer anything from it, but it can certainly create an impression. It's just not a piece of evidence.

 

[Napoleon III]

Not that I think there's any chance this goes to trial

I think there absolutely is a chance this goes to trial. Nick hasn't been smart about this at all.

If nothing else making this go to trial means he gets to spend longer doing drugs and drinking.

 

[Nate Higgers]

I could believe that. Kayla the crack whore or one of her bulls gets pissed a kid is begging for food. She throws some cocaine/drugs at the kid in anger and the kid inhales enough/swallows enough they get sick. This may or not be the same story where Nick cancelled a stream because "someone close to him" needed to be watched all night.

I obviously have no solid evidence to support this but my schizo theory is:

We know Kayla had some “gummies” that she attempted to smuggle into the county jail when she was booked (which law enforcement found and confiscated). We know that they had a range of different drugs in the house, from cocaine to ketamine to “gummies”, apparently.

I’m speculating that Nick and Kayla possibly ended up getting to such a point in their degenerate activities where they would possibly be willing to give the kids “low dose” THC (or CBD) “gummies” just to get them to sleep or to get them to zone out on their fucking iPads in another corner of the house…while Nick and Kayla were boozing+snorting+swinging with Aaron and April in another corner of the house.

I’m not a lawyer or informed about the law so again I’m just speculating, and I don’t know if “she gave her kids 2mg weed gummies so they could sedate the kids” would be the same crime under the “physical/sexual abuse of a minor” law that she’s being charged with.

tl;dr: I personally think she gave those kids some of those gummies

 

[Brian Oblivion]

There's something I have been wondering about, concerning your right to remain silent and the jury not being allowed to take that into account:
What happens if I talk to the police about certain things and remain silent on others. Can the jury take the partial silence into account and assume that what I refused to say was bad for me? Or would that violate the 5th amendment.

If your circumstances were identical to Nick's then those silences would probably be admissible given, if the police report is to be believed, Nick was mirandized and clearly waived his 5th amendment rights. If Nick responded to their questions about cocaine by explicitly (re)invoking his rights and ending the interview (which again doesn't appear to be the case from the police report), then his refusal could be deemed inadmissible, but simply refusing to answer in and of itself most likely isn't enough.

 

[AnOminous]

Not trying to balldo guard but could complying with the search warrant be equated to an admission of guilt?

No. That would be utterly insane. Why would complying with a legal process be an admission of guilt?

Though if they've got a signed warrant, that's usually pretty clear evidence that they're allowed to do it. Or you should let them do it and have your lawyer challenge it later.

It might be a good idea to keep an eye on what they're doing, lest they go sniffing beyond what the warrant permits.

And reading it, instead of throwing it on the ground like some illiterate white trash wigger, would probably help you with that.

If they don't have a warrant, obviously you tell them to fuck off. If they do have one, either be ready to defend your home with violence or let them in, because otherwise you are just going to be paying contractors, making your house shittier, and making the cops happy.

That's if they don't cite exigent circumstances. In that situation, unless you're really willing to get shot by cops, you still deny consent verbally but do not under any circumstances get in a fight with cops unless they're literally trying to murder you, unless you want to end up dead unnecessarily instead of potentially collecting a nice civil judgment a few years later.

You aren't legally required to willfully give your house keys, nor your private keys to the government in the US.

Unfortunately, the issue is much more muddled than that. Generally, the police can't just demand it, but it can be the subject of a court order. The case law is vastly conflicting as to what circumstances would justify it, or whether the Fifth Amendment prohibits it (as my personal opinion is).

 

[Thomas Talus]

You aren't legally required to willfully give your house keys, nor your private keys to the government in the US. They will attempt forced entry either way, they will either succeed or fail.

If they have enough to arrest you, or reasonably think they have enough to arrest you such as to be able to deny a motion to suppress on those grounds, then they could do a search incident to arrest and obtain the keys that way.

 

[Truly Rural]

Here is what I'm curious about in regard to the awareness and allowing abuse to happen part of Kayla's charge. I read that possible defense is being afraid that trying to stop the abuse would have worse consequences. I get that. But here is a hypothetical situation

Let's say Nick or any abuser is hitting the child. Kayla being there fulfills the "knowing" part. What if she repeatedly asked the abuser to stop, not hurt him, leave him alone, go away, etc. My question is wouldn't the mere words like "stop it" possibly be considerable form of defense against the charge. I never allowed it I was demanding they stop. type of thing, on top of I was scared to get physical?

 

[A Cardboard Box]

@AnOminous I'd love to get your opinion on something. Without getting too much into my personal stuff, I'm pretty familiar with CAF (and no, not as a victim of having my shit taken by the government). I'm not familiar with Minnesota law specifically, but after reading their statute regarding possession with intent, it's not significantly different from what I'm familiar with, and the charging documents paint what I believe to be a pretty clear case for a possession with intent charge. My question is this, in two parts: how likely do you think it could get upgraded to possession with intent, especially assuming April has gone State's Evidence, and if that charge is upgraded, how likely that the property is seized via CAF?

 

[Dr. Jaime Reyes]

Lawbros, is there any Imholte angle here at all? Like other laymen I was intrigued by April getting released and figured she was cooperating. My questions are twofold:

If they want her to testify, have they already given up their leverage by dropping charges?

And will they actually need witnesses? It seems like the drug charges will stand or fall just fine as is. Cops executed a warrant and found a stash. If the warrant stands up to scrutiny and the white stuff in the little bags is cocaine (both slam dunks I assume) then the state has them dead to rights. But I’d imagine the child-endangerment charges would be more difficult. The cops might have spent a couple hours with the Rekieta kids waiting for Mommy to arrange a babysitter so she could visit the nice policemen. By itself not nearly enough to prove neglect. Assuming those charges aren’t just there to intimidate Rackets into playing ball*, will the state be looking to interview the pastor, the house guests, etc? Can the cops interview the kids? I’d assume they can but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were rules in place to protect the kids and inhibit, at least a little, the ability of law enforcement to get a six year old to repeat whatever they want.

*I have no doubt the neglect is real, I’m just ignorant of the manner in which the state would need to prove it.

 

[DavidS877]

If they want her to testify, have they already given up their leverage by dropping charges?

No, they can always bring charges later.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Lawbros, is there any Imholte angle here at all? Like other laymen I was intrigued by April getting released and figured she was cooperating. My questions are twofold:

If they want her to testify, have they already given up their leverage by dropping charges?

And will they actually need witnesses? It seems like the drug charges will stand or fall just fine as is. Cops executed a warrant and found a stash. If the warrant stands up to scrutiny and the white stuff in the little bags is cocaine (both slam dunks I assume) then the state has them dead to rights. But I’d imagine the child-endangerment charges would be more difficult. The cops might have spent a couple hours with the Rekieta kids waiting for Mommy to arrange a babysitter so she could visit the nice policemen. By itself not nearly enough to prove neglect. Assuming those charges aren’t just there to intimidate Rackets into playing ball*, will the state be looking to interview the pastor, the house guests, etc? Can the cops interview the kids? I’d assume they can but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were rules in place to protect the kids and inhibit, at least a little, the ability of law enforcement to get a six year old to repeat whatever they want.

*I have no doubt the neglect is real, I’m just ignorant of the manner in which the state would need to prove it.

Well they raided the house and it was a literal crack den with these little vials of crack everywhere, I'm sure they took plenty of pictures. They also have hundreds of hours of videos to go through talking about how other people need to feed his kids, stuff like that.

 

[Spaded Dave]

But I’d imagine the child-endangerment charges would be more difficult.

Depends on what they are going for. Just having/using drugs with guns around and while caring for children already does most of the work for you, and that as you said is solid.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Lawbros, is there any Imholte angle here at all?

They probably don't have enough to charge her right now. It's the possession of drugs that's illegal, not the consumption, and I suspect all they can show off of their preliminary investigation is that she was in the house (as a "guest" per the nose), which is not illegal. If she had a baggie on her, or there was one labelled "April's" in the house, it would be a different story.

 

[Spaded Dave]

They probably don't have enough to charge her right now. It's the possession of drugs that's illegal, not the consumption, and I suspect all they can show off of their preliminary investigation is that she was in the house (as a "guest" per the nose), which is not illegal. If she had a baggie on her, or there was one labelled "April's" in the house, it would be a different story.

It's also a matter of whether or not it's worth their time. They have charges they could bring for sure, but why bother honestly?

 

[AnOminous]

My question is this, in two parts: how likely do you think it could get upgraded to possession with intent, especially assuming April has gone State's Evidence, and if that charge is upgraded, how likely that the property is seized via CAF?

Legally, it could. I'd need more specific knowledge than I have to have a remotely useful opinion on the subject. Possession with intent sometimes has a threshold amount where the amount itself presumptively establishes intent. Apparently, the amount here doesn't meet that threshold, but intent can often also be established by the presence of more than user quantity in the combination of contextual evidence like the presence of bags, scales, and other evidence of distribution.

I actually don't think Nick was actually dealing drugs, I just think he is an extremely heavy user. I might change my mind if they actually do upgrade the charges.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The warrant gives police lawful authority to enter. Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and is unnecessary when a warrant has issued, hence busting down the door if the resident wants to be a dick.

This. Some lawtube pundits like Sean seemed to think not opening the door was the right call. I don't think so. It is usually the right call in usual circumstances to not help the police investigate you. Not opening the door when they announce a raid and shove a warrant in your face is an exception. They are going to come in. Would you like your door knocked off it's hinges or in place after they leave?

 

[VeteranOfTheRetardWars]

Nick telling cops to go fuck themselves is entirely in character for him, both pre- and post-booze transformation.

Maybe he refused to give the door code hoping that Kayla would see the cops outside, understand what's happening, and run to flush the drugs. Forcing them to breach the door gives her time to get upstairs and do it, since half the drugs were already in a bathroom and the rest were in the nearby closet. I doubt there was any grander legal strategy beyond stubbornness and hope.

Nick has many times stated that he never cooperates with cops. Non-answers, being petty, all that stuff. From speeding to coke, it’s his MO.

 

[AnOminous]

This. Some lawtube pundits like Sean seemed to think not opening the door was the right call. I don't think so. It is usually the right call in usual circumstances to not help the police investigate you. Not opening the door when they announce a raid and shove a warrant in your face is an exception. They are going to come in. Would you like your door knocked off it's hinges or in place after they leave?

Do you want your daughter injured or even killed by a door getting rammed into her face?

What Nick decided was he was totally okay with that. That's how much he hates his kids.

 

[Napoleon III]

This. Some lawtube pundits like Sean seemed to think not opening the door was the right call. I don't think so. It is usually the right call in usual circumstances to not help the police investigate you. Not opening the door when they announce a raid and shove a warrant in your face is an exception. They are going to come in. Would you like your door knocked off it's hinges or in place after they leave?

Time for an unpopular opinion

Maybe there is something to this theory in general. Though I don't believe it applies in this case because of the children.

You could force the Police to break down your door as a way to make them look like complete assholes. This is kind of a kicking the dog until it cowers or bites you kind of thing where if the dog cowers you get what you want if the dog bites you then you can loudly proclaim that the dog bit you.

I wouldn't think this might be true except some lawyers like Sean think this is true. I trust practicing lawyers over my own opinion in general.

I think this will lose all weight once the Police point out this complaint came from someone reporting harm done to children. And also just looking at the stuff Nick put his children through in general and also by forcing the Police to kick his door down is not good for the Children. The Police will not look like assholes in this scenario IMO.