TexasCHLforum.com

SlowDave,

No problem. The confusion is in how an arrest warrant and arrests work. The thing to remember is that our laws are very discretionary. They state the police MAY arrest for most offenses that they are present for. Other than the one case of a person violating a protective order in the presence of an officer, the police do not have to make any arrests at the time. In many cases, the police will decide not to arrest at the time so they can have the evidence tested or the case reviewed by a judge or district attorney. In case like that, the police have to get an arrest warrant to make the arrest, just as if they had not been present.

There is one type of case where this happens often that most people are familiar with. Consider an accident where a driver is drunk and the other people are injured. The police will usually want to file the intoxicated assault charge, but they don't do it immediately. They take the drunk to the hospital for a blood sample, then send this sample to the police lab for testing. They also complete the investigation and have the case, with the evidence of the lab report, reviewed by the DA. Then they get an arrest warrant for intoxication assault.

This helps the police to not make a mistake and press charges for the wrong offense. And it helps prevent us from losing cases due to the speedy trial act (which used to guarantee a trial within a set number of days from the arrest). Now, the police must be ready in a reasonable time. But while they get the evidence ready and look for the right experts to help them if the case is complicated, not arresting doesn't start the clock like an arrest would.

And, of course, while the system was not set up to do this, it allows the police to release someone at the scene and then change their minds and file charges on him later. This is a possibility of what happened in this case, though I tend to think it was intimidation. I just like to make sure we consider all the possibilities before we lynch people or departments.

There are two points to take into account on this. The first and most important is that this is an edited video and not continuous coverage that the news is showing. I am always very leery of edited videos. Even given that, the news story does make it look very bad for the police involved. The big questions is what evidence he will have of the second assault while walking down the hallway. The second point is that we do not yet know enough about the subsequent arrest. If the police filed the charges on him, they would have had the warrant by the time he came back in. That arrest might be legal, even though the news story makes it look like it was revenge. Resisting and failure to display a CHL are both misdemeanors. You can arrest at the scene or with a warrant, but not legally arrest without the warrant several days later.

I also wonder what happened to the complaint. If he was adamant about filing it, was the complaint taken? Was it investigated? What are the results of that investigation?

Puma guy, yes there is a law saying you cannot get out of the car, sort of. Transportation Code section 542.501 requires people to obey the lawful orders of police officers. SCOTUS has ruled several times that this includes getting in and out of the car. As a matter of fact, two years ago they ruled that this even applied to passengers who can now consider themselves under arrest as part of the traffic stop, giving them the right to question the grounds for the stop.

Basically, the courts have ruled that any time you are in a situation with the police, they are in charge and can tell you what and what not to do. And you are not supposed to do anything they do not tell you to. Obviously, they cannot legally violate your rights though.

From the facts reported by the paper and pending hearing the other side's story, I have to agree that Carrollton PD is about to be out some big bucks and two officers, plus one sergeant especially (laughing at the scene) should not be in law enforcement.