"Sir, another interesting new matter of public record just hit the farms."
Out of the entire shitshow, I guarantee the thing Nick thinks about most is the identity of MNPublicRecords. TYFYS.
Re: the kids returning home soon, don't be surprised if Nick's right.
In Minnesota CHIPS cases the gubbermint must prove (1) that 1 or more of the statutory child-protection grounds exists AND (2) the child needs protection as a result. In other words, it's not enough that what's alleged in the petition is true. There also has to be a finding that something is likely to happen in the future without protective services.
If this sounds fucked up, it is. In In re Welfare of Child of S.S.W., a violent, off-and-on homeless, bipolar mother who lived with her child abusing boyfriend and who already lost parental rights to 4 kids, including her 5 and 6 year old sons whom she molested, won the case (her new kid didn't need protective services) because she was doing everything they asked (testing clean, going to therapy, clean house, etc.) and everything seemed fine with the kid (who had remained in her custody prior to trial).
In other states it's enough that whatever happened happened. They don't need to prove it's likely to happen again without CPS.
In Nick's case, the kids were in danger because the parents were wasted, there were drugs in the house that one kid seemingly ingested, the house was a dump, and they weren't being fed. If the house is clean and has food, and the parents pass 60 days of tests and do the "drugs are bad" counseling, then they're probably good.
In fairness to Nick, he hadn't seen the copy of the warrant until after arriving back at the home after they breached. He only had their word that they had one when they asked for the door code while he was stopped on the side of the road.
Every state is different, but I assume it was so nothing he did could be construed as a consent to a search. In some states, if a search warrant is determined to be deficient, then the state will argue that the defendant’s actions meant he consented to a search, which makes an illegal search legal. In other words, if Nick gave the cops the door code, then it doesn’t matter if the search warrant was valid or not because the state would argue that he consented to the search.
Late, but re: consent and making the cops force their way in...
The burden of proving consent "cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority." Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (196
. This means if the cops lie about having a warrant, or if the warrant gets thrown out later in court, the fact that you let them in to execute the warrant doesn't make the search lawful based on consent.
Letting the police execute a search warrant is being a good citizen and respecting lawful authority. It would be fucking retarded if the courts said "sorry, but you had to tell the police 'go fuck yourselves... break down the door if you want in' in order to preserve your constitutional rights.
There was no shrewd legal maneuvering when Nick refused to give the code. He misunderstood the law, wanted to buy time for his hoes to flush the sack, or was just being a dick.
Deferred adjudication has to be approved by the prosecutor and the court. Accusing a county social worker of perjury and a local judge of being a retarded bitch with liquor flowing from her vagina is not the greatest way to get a favor from Madame Prosecutor. She definitely wants him to eat a felony. If Barneswalker negotiates him a deferred adjudication, then he did a great job. An Alford plea is a much more realistic goal, and it would allow Nick to claim "I'm innocent but I had to do this for muh keeds."
I don't think Rekieta has the humility for a plea deal.
I bet that's outweighed by Nick not having the balls to "take it to the box" as all the brothers say before inevitably taking a plea. He's a control freak and the smartest guy in every room, so being a defendant in a criminal jury trial is possibly the most unbearable situation imaginable. Plus, he has no defense that any jury would possibly buy. If the drugs don't get suppressed for a bad warrant (they won't), then he's taking a plea. If he goes to trial, then he's legitimately insane.
