Slaton, TX arrest woman for asking to see their warrant to arrest her son...

That's supposed to say
"Slayton, TX POLICE arrest woman"
:banghead:

... which they didn't have.
Police showed up at her house, saying they were there to arrest her son (who had been accused of a crime), on May 29. The warrant wasn't signed until the 30th.

So they arrested her, left a sitter at the house with her son (who is the one they said they were there to take in), held her in jail overnight.
http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/lo...ul-arrest-warrant/0vJ1Rr-6OkqWHtfsUtvqGg.cspx

[her lawyer] said the Slaton Police Department will issue an apology as long as the mother agrees not to file a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Which is a clear indication that they know they were in the wrong and are trying to CYA.

I know "some" police are goofs all over the country, but what the heck is going on lately with Texas PEACE OFFICERS?First the "rude display of firearm" charge against a OCer in Temple Texas now this bunk??? I hope the mother files mulitiple color of law abuse complaints with the FBI & cleans their clock in a 1983 Federal suit, then goes after the officers for their personal assets in civil court once their qualified immunity blanky has been torn away from them. :banghead:

A few years ago, I came across a number of references to police no longer needing to show a warrant. Police only need to possess a warrant, not bring it to the scene. It can be back at the station or on the moon--it merely has to exist. I can't recall the case(s).

The situation in the OP makes perfect sense when viewed against no longer needing to show the warrant. Some police are exemplars of stretching the rules, finding creative interpretations that suit their intentions, coming up with anti-rights loopholes. Its too predictable that "don't have to show a warrant" gets stretched into "can defer getting the warrant until later."

I imagine this "get the warrant later" business dovetails with no-knock raids, telephonic warrants, and so forth. I mean really. If you're a statist court that supports government, and you want to ratify telephonic warrants as constitutional, then you necessarily must undermine the right of the citizen to see the warrant before submitting to police. Same for no-knock raids. As a black-robed government lawyer, if you want to validate no-knock raids, you must undermine the right of the citizen to view the warrant before submitting to police.

The upshot here is to force people to submit to police without knowing whether the police have the actual authority for the search or arrest. The warrant is the authority for the search or arrest. Free men with the attitude of being free men aren't going to just roll over and let cops search their house or arrest themselves or someone in the house just because its police. Now, you have to submit first, then sort it out later--when government has all the advantages--hoping the government is dumb enough not to effectively cover-up.

FreeInAZ said:

I know "some" police are goofs all over the country, but what the heck is going on lately with Texas PEACE OFFICERS? ...

Click to expand...

City government doesn't like good cops, city government likes profitable cops. City government hires and fires cops.

Not all of Texas, but in my area this seems to be where things are headed.

I know of an instance in a nearby city where a police officer actually admitted on the side of the road that if they write enough tickets they receive a bonus. In another instance, an officer litterally referred to a stack of warrants as "money."

I can't help but have mixed feelings about it because I often think that municipal government and even organizations like police departments would in many cases work better if run more like a business - meaning that profitability would become a priority. Perhaps I was wrong. On the other hand, if it was also more like a business in the sense of distribution of authority it might pan out differently. But that's too deep of a discussion for this thread.

I hope she (in the OP) gets justice for what happened to her.

It's too predictable that "don't have to show a warrant" gets stretched into "can defer getting the warrant until later."

Click to expand...

This is one of many abuses of civil rights which need to stop.

The upshot here is to force people to submit to police without knowing whether the police have the actual authority for the search or arrest.

Click to expand...

Which is what many many many officers want/expect.
There are still some good, law-abiding, Constitution-respecting ones out there, but they need to stand up to their co-workers so they don't get associated with the stink.

The one thing I wanted to see in that story was the age of the son. If he were an adult (and there really was a warrant), then mom was wrong to insist on seeing the warrant. Since the son was a minor (11), it is her right and duty to look out for his legal interests and act on his behalf. No one needs to submit to an arrest warrant that does not exist. One may demand to see it. If one is a minor, the parent should absolutely act on behalf of the minor who is surely ignorant of his rights.

She should sue. Suing should produce the apology--AND some money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

"the Slaton Police Department will issue an apology as long as the mother agrees not to file a lawsuit. "


I wonder if criminals get the option to just issue an apology and avoid getting arrested ?

In this case the lady should file suit, damn the apology, and take all the cash, move out of that horrible state.

My .02

CCJ

eye95 said:

The one thing I wanted to see in that story was the age of the son. If he were an adult (and there really was a warrant), then mom was wrong to insist on seeing the warrant. Since the son was a minor (11), it is her right and duty to look out for his legal interests and act on his behalf. No one needs to submit to an arrest warrant that does not exist. One may demand to see it. If one is a minor, the parent should absolutely act on behalf of the minor who is surely ignorant of his rights.

She should sue. Suing should produce the apology--AND some money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

If the polices say they have a warrant nothing wrong no matter the age of the person in asking to see it. Or be given the reason they don't have it in hand.

I have served a lot of warrants some warrants in hand, most on information and belief a valid warrant was issued.

Meaning dispatch finds a warrant in the system but you don't have it in hand. The proper procedure for that is to inform the person to be arrested that. There is a warrant for their arrest issued by such and such court for such crime as listed.

Then as soon as the person is delivered to the jail a hard copy is provided to the person arrested.

This sounds to me like they were lying about the warrant to try and smooth the arrest and got caught, Then tried to cover their lying by arresting the mother wrong thing to do.

There are good and proper times and reasons that one can arrest someone with out a warrant was this one not enough information given.

This could very well cost them/department some big bucks. It was wrong and improper.

With the advent of in car computers and printers it has became a lot easier to show the suspect a warrant was issued.

My point was that if the person is a minor, then the parent has the right to see the warrant.

If he were not a minor, then his mother would have no right to demand to see the warrant--and stopping the officers from executing the warrant by demanding to see it could well be obstruction. There, of course, would also be the question of allowing the officers onto her property. However, even if she were legally able to keep them from coming onto her property to serve the warrant on someone who did not live there (in the case that her son were an adult), they would simply hang around to arrest him when he left while they awaited a warrant to search her premises for him--and that warrant they would have to show her on demand.

The age of the person does matter when it comes to the right of another to demand to see the warrant.

Your point being...?

If they are asking to enter the mothers house to serve such warrant ,I think the mother or any other adult is in every right to ask for the warrant.

The purpose of a warrant is to show that you have a legal right to do what you are doing and the purpose you are there for is legal.

Then once you have produced such warrant and the person still blocks or obstructs you then you have a good and proper reason to arrest them.

Yes it can be done with out a warrant in hand given the proper circumstances. But it opens up a whole new area that has to be dealt with to make it legal and proper.

If the warrant is for another adult, I'd say privacy concerns would forbid them from showing the warrant.

They can announce that they have a warrant, but if it is not for you or your premises, you don't have to let them in. If it is for you or your premises, you can demand the warrant and must allow them to exercise it.

Now, if the warrant is for someone else (whose premises these are not) and does not authorize them to search your property for the person, and if you exercise your right not to let them enter your premises, and if the other adult is there...well, watch out for an obstruction charge. The best way to handle that situation? Send the named adult out and let him demand the warrant.

My whole point was that she did have the right to see the warrant because it was for her minor son, and it is her right and responsibility to protect his rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

She should sue. Suing should produce the apology--AND some money.

Click to expand...

The suit (and or a settlement of same) may produce money. It may produce legally mandated modification of behavior. It is EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely to produce an apology because:

1. It's an admission of fault they're VERY unlikely to make.
2. They're usually not sorry AT ALL, even when they wrongfully kill somebody.

The recent shooting of the elderly paper delivery woman in L.A. was a notable exception, doubtless brought on by the sheer hopelessness of the L.A.P.D.'s case. Even after the insincere "apology", they still managed to treat the victims like garbage. You should note that all of the perpetrators are still employed by the L.A.P.D. and getting paychecks paid for by the victims.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

If they are asking to enter the mothers house to serve such warrant ,I think the mother or any other adult is in every right to ask for the warrant.

The purpose of a warrant is to show that you have a legal right to do what you are doing and the purpose you are there for is legal.

Then once you have produced such warrant and the person still blocks or obstructs you then you have a good and proper reason to arrest them.

Yes it can be done with out a warrant in hand given the proper circumstances. But it opens up a whole new area that has to be dealt with to make it legal and proper.

Click to expand...

E.G. you've been LEGALLY detained for another cause and a warrant was discovered while running your information.

If the police want to enter my home to search for someone claiming they have a warrant to arrest the other person, YES I have a RIGHT to inspect the warrant before I product the other someone. I then have the option to allow them in for the limited extent of executing the warrant OR giving the other someone notice to empty their pockets and go with the police peacefully.

If the police are just going door to door looking for someone then I don't have to answer any questions such as, "Is John Doe here?"
If there is a valid warrant for John Doe and John Doe is in my home then I must either have John Doe come to the door or allow the police in.

Deanimator said:

The suit (and or a settlement of same) may produce money. It may produce legally mandated modification of behavior. It is EXCEPTIONALLY unlikely to produce an apology because:

1. It's an admission of fault they're VERY unlikely to make.
2. They're usually not sorry AT ALL, even when they wrongfully kill somebody.

The recent shooting of the elderly paper delivery woman in L.A. was a notable exception, doubtless brought on by the sheer hopelessness of the L.A.P.D.'s case. Even after the insincere "apology", they still managed to treat the victims like garbage. You should note that all of the perpetrators are still employed by the L.A.P.D. and getting paychecks paid for by the victims.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said "an official recognition of wrongdoing," even if the office it comes from is the court--for which the woman should be actually striving: an acknowledgment that her and her son's rights were violated.

Nightmare said:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Information+and+Belief

Click to expand...

The front porch is NOT a court room or court proceeding....

eye95 said:

Maybe I should have said "an official recognition of wrongdoing," even if the office it comes from is the court--for which the woman should be actually striving: an acknowledgment that her and her son's rights were violated.

Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the recent civil judgment in the case of the Chicago cop who stomped the barmaid half his size.

There is now an OFFICIAL judicial finding that the Chicago PD maintains a "blue wall of silence".

They're going to live with that FOREVER.

Deanimator said:

That's the beauty of the recent civil judgment in the case of the Chicago cop who stomped the barmaid half his size.

There is now an OFFICIAL judicial finding that the Chicago PD maintains a "blue wall of silence".

They're going to live with that FOREVER.

Click to expand...

Oooo. I either missed that tidbit or forgot it since then. Thanks for pointing it out.