TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:

this is where I'm stopping....you are doing exactly what I asked everyone not to do, and really what I didn't expect our LEO's to do...He is 11! and ONE! comment on a NEWS site is the ONLY place that has mentioned any charge. yes he obviously did something bad enough to get arrested, but let it play out in the courts, not here, we were discussing the mom, not the child.

Now wait a min. Sure I mentioned the charge. Not because I think the defendant is less deserving of his civil rights but to emphasize the seriousness of the arrest in the officers mind. This was a major felony with public safety issues. Sure he is 11 but 11yo's have raped, murdered, and done just about anything you can think of. So? Cops tend to try not to get those cases throw out. I don't know that he did anything or that there is any basis for the charge at all and I'm not trying to imply otherwise just that this was not run of the mill for a town with 10 cops and less than 3 thousand citizens.

Purplehood wrote: Are you normally this combative on your posts or am I just having a cranky Monday?

I'm a bit cranky to be honest. You would like to go to a forum and just share ideas and info openly but all to often, even on this forum, if you try to make sure people have their facts straight you get attacked and insulted not because you are wrong but because you dare to interrupt someones narrative. I'm not saying someone didn't screw up just that we don't know who and try and put the screw up in the proper context.

SewTexas wrote:
I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the entire thing, those officers KNEW they couldn't arrest the kid! they left without him, and only the mom, she had to get someone else to spend the night at the house with him...and you know what??? I honestly thought until this conversation....that an officer had to bring the arrest warrant with him. And I probably would have been arrested just like the momma.

I don't think that the officer did know. Look there was obviously PC and rape of a 5yo is a big charge that you don't want to screw up. It's hard to see the cop going there and saying they had papers when they didn't. Maybe the DA said "I'll take this to the Judge and it should be ready when you get there" and the Cop failed to double check. Much more likely and while may or may not be against policy if the officer believed the order was good then he didn't break the law.

LEO's put yourself in her position just a minute, God forbid...your son has been accused of something, someone has told her they are calling the cops on him, you know that much. You maybe blame yourself, you probably don't believe any of it. You just know you've got to protect him now and make sure everything happens like it should.

Then she should of been calling a lawyer or the DA not getting herself arrested

It doesn't matter one wit that she can't be prosecuted...she's got an arrest on her record! You know as well as I do that is a question on a background check, it will impact her getting a job, weather she wants to work with children or as a checker at Walmart. That cop blew it. My question would be, it's a small town, does he know the accuser, or does he have a problem with "innocent until proven guilty"?

No it won't. It wasn't a valid arrest and shouldn't be on any record and won't make any difference to anyone.

SewTexas wrote:
so in other words....

the LEO arrested Mom for asking for a warrant, that wasn't ready and apparently wouldn't be ready because he was going in under the Family Code so that was something else entirely, and really didn't need "LEO" exactly anyway? have I got that right?

Oh, and keep in mind, the whole "rape charge" thing was mentioned in ONE comment....let's not ruin the kid based on that, he might have done something wrong, but who knows what exactly. I've seen men have their reputation ruined based on less.

Huh? What question are you trying to ask or do you just want to try and make it as confusing as possible? It really doesn't seem that complicated. Adults get warrants juvs get directives to apprehend. Warrants normally come from criminal court and directive to apprehend from family court. Both have to signed by a judge and have an affidavit swearing to the probable cause that exists for detaining the individual. Obviously at some point paperwork on the kid was sent to the court and the officer must have thought a directive to apprehend was approved. Why I don't know. Maybe someone told him incorrectly, maybe he just didn't check, perhaps the judge went home early, who knows. So an officer went out to arrest the defendant, a 11yo boy, on a very serious charge . By the way this town only has 10 ft officers. On going to the defendants house the mother, who had known that the police were coming for her boy and why they were doing so, refused to cooperate with the officer, demanding to see the "arrest warrant" before she would give custody of the defendant to the officer. We have no idea how long or what efforts the officer made to try and make the women understand the situation but the woman was stopping and interfering with an arrest and demanding something the officers are not required to provide. She wasn't asking she was stating that she would only comply with the law after she saw a warrant. You don't get to do that. Now someone screwed up big time. I don't know where the blame belongs. The police officer, someone else in the PD, The court, the clerk, the ADA, but there certainly was a screw up. There wasn't a signed order at the time the officer first went to arrest the defendant. Because of that the mother gets a break. She can't be prosecuted for her actions. The order was signed the next day and her kid was then arrested.


As an aside the court can appoint or assign persons other that law enforcement to execute warrants and directives to apprehend it they decide to do so but I see no evidence of that occurring in this case.

I never snapped to the fact that the kid would be arrested under the family code not criminal. Let's see what the FC says.

52.02(b). A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give notice of his action and a
statement of the reason for taking the child into custody, to:
(1) the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2) the office or official designated by the juvenile court

Seems consistent.
They have to say why but don't have to show anything.

Dragonfighter wrote: When I weighed in it seemed you had moved from not showing the warrant to not needing one. A subtle but significant difference.

Rereading it was poor word choice. If they are arresting someone on a warrant, then while there needs to be a good warrant somewhere but they don't need it or any copy with them to execute that warrant and nothing I see mandates their showing anyone a warrant at the time of arrest. If they happen to have it they should go ahead and show it but it may or may not be ok to wait quite awhile depending on what courts have held in the past.

Art. 15.26. AUTHORITY TO ARREST MUST BE MADE KNOWN. In executing a warrant of arrest, it shall always be made known to the accused under what authority the arrest is made. The warrant shall be executed by the arrest of the defendant. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, provided the warrant was issued under the provisions of this Code, but upon request he shall show the warrant to the defendant as soon as possible. If the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of arrest he shall then inform the defendant of the offense charged and of the fact that a warrant has been issued. The arrest warrant, and any affidavit presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of the warrant, is public information, and beginning immediately when the warrant is executed the magistrate's clerk shall make a copy of the warrant and the affidavit available for public inspection in the clerk's office during normal business hours. A person may request the clerk to provide copies of the warrant and affidavit on payment of the cost of providing the copies.

RX8er wrote:I want to keep this thread open for the great discussion therefore, please stop calling the mom names.

She is one of those idiots who scream

This wouldn't be tolerated if we were talking about the LEO and I don't want to go down that route.

Sorry, you're right. I don't know the lady at all. I end up getting sucked in and taking a much stronger stance that i really want to. The fact is there is no right to view an arrest warrant in Texas. If the defendant doesn't have that right why would people think a kids Mom has it? No one wants to research their claims or the legal validity just make up stuff declaring it fact. Sure I used an actual insult towards the mother and I shouldn't have, but wasn't saying " She was in his way and he could not be bothered" as a fact even more insulting? If we find out more I may be very upset and call for the officers firing but so far we got that there was a mistake in issuing the warrant and that a Mom got lucky because she committed what would be a crime if the warrant was valid. Luckily for her it wasn't so she got to go home.

mamabearCali wrote:
And when the cop arrests you for asking what your son is being charged with or tells you it is none of your business (because that is that the cop thinks the law is).....which is pretty close to what happened here.....what then?

As a lay person I would expect a LEO at a door looking for a child to have their ducks on order. If I don't have my ducks in order and I interact with a LEO in a simple traffic stop I will be punished as far as the law allows.

As far as I can tell, she was arrested because the LEO did not want to take the time to explain things. She was in his way and he could not be bothered. That is not okay no matter how many people are on the force. If a particular agency has so few LEO's all the more important to cultivate good Public relations.

Well if you just want to make stuff up out of whole cloth ............ Look she knew they were coming and knew what the charges would be and I don't believe for a second the cops wouldn't tell her what the charge was. Why don't I believe that? Because that is the law. Her seeing a warrant before she would allow the officers to take custody isn't. (Actually they have to tell the defendant, I have no idea what Juvi law requires as far as parental notification). I think she was arrested because she made demands that she lawfully couldn't, and thus interfered with the officers duties. She is one of those idiots who scream "I know my rights!" as they are being hauled away to jail. The problem is they get confused between TV and real life. They don't "know their rights" and they push cops to far. It just so happens there was a screw up and the kid got to wait a day before being arrested for raping a 5yo girl. Yippee!

mamabearCali wrote: I read what you said every word. You say a parent has no right to see an arrest warrant. So if a LEO comes for your child you will just hand them over no problem?

If a cop showed up, identified himself, explained that they were serving a warrant for my child and tells me what the warrant was for? Yes I would allow them to arrest my kid. That is the law and unless I had some big reason to think having a shootout with the cops would be better than taking it to court then what the heck else would you do? Get arrested for the sake of making a point with no real, well maybe even a negative, effect on the charges for your kid? Who is supposed to be the adult?

An 11 year old charged with rape is very serious of course, but all the more reason to do everything in an upright a manner as possible. He obviously was not enough of a threat....they did not even arrest him at that time, but waited days.

First he was arrested the next day. When the warrant was valid, second when looking at her statement she indicated she would turn over her son when shown a warrant. Indicating that she had some control but refused to cooperate. Not standing mute but saying I could but won't unless you do what I demand. Unfortunately she has no right to make that demand that I find in Texas law. That may be enough to arrest her but still might not allow them to enter her home to search for her son which we don't even know if he was at that location, and finally we are talking about a force with 10 full time officers. 10. After arresting this mother of the year maybe it might take awhile to get someone else out. Maybe at some point they realized the warrant never got signed. The delay without more info means squat.

As far as baloney charges.....they happen all the time. People charged with what amounts to contempt of cop. They then either plead or are forced to spend $$ on clearing their name. If you don't hear of this, I don't know where you ae looking.

You say you can read so show me where this came up? Oh because I disagreed with you assertion that since charges where dropped they couldn't of been valid? Well I'm sorry but saying people sometimes get railroaded, or phrase it how you will, still does not prove your point. Both things can happen at different times. Mind you I already said that I think the arrest would be invalid but ..............

philip964 wrote:First thing is coming inside the house. Was the police officer invited inside the home? She would have to bring the child to the door, if she denied entry. Since he did not get the child, I would guess she denied entry. Since she is the legal guardian, it would seem important that she protect the child's legal rights, and see if there was a valid arrest warrant for the child. In this situation I see no difference between the mother and an attorney. Would the police officer have arrested the child's attorney in the same situation?

Yes there is no law requiring them to show a warrant just that they inform the defendant of said warrant and charge. Of course a lawyer would know better so it's a trick question.

mamabearCali wrote:

EEllis wrote:
So cops legally come, because at that point the Mother was already aware and believed the officers were correct in having a warrant, to arrest your child for a major felony and because they don't show you a paper that they are not required to and wouldn't have on them under any normal circumstances and you say that "the fight would be on?" That is natural to you? Look I don't know maybe the cop over reacted and could of dealt with the Mother better but why in the heck would I assume the cop was in the wrong and if you think fighting the cops is so natural then why would you assume she stood there and in no way obstructed the police and just asked for a warrant? How do you know how long the cop may have spent trying to talk this lady down? You decided how you wanted the story to go the populated it with assumptions and strawmen.

So someone shows up at your door demanding your 11 year old son, you would hand them over with no questions asked because they are in uniform? Producing a warrant is not unreasonable and protects everyone.

If it was me, I would be asking for a warrant, and proof of identity. Then upon such proof that they were not a goon squad pretending to be LEO's. I would be insisting that they do not question him without me or a lawyer present and I would be telling him not to say a word in the interim.

Remember this is an 11 year old, not a 16 or 17 year old. This is a child in every sense of the word. Can children still do terrible things, yes, but they are children and the parents of children have the responsiblity to see to their welfare. checking to make sure the people at your door have a warrant and really are LEO's is the minimum I would expect from a parent.

I am certain that if they had anything to charge the mother with....to save face and to save themselves a lawsuit.....they would have charged her with something.

Where did I say that? Does no one actually read the posts? Sure I would ask what where and why but I wouldn't demand things I wasn't entitled to and that they were not required to provide. It doesn't say they wouldn't ID themselves now did it. It said she "demanded" to see a warrant. She doesn't have that right and the cops don't have that duty.Yes the kid was 11 but the alleged victim was 5 and if true the kid could provide a threat to the public , or at least the little neighborhood girls, so playing his age don't work for me. Also his mom knew who was there and why. She was waiting for them being told ahead of time the cops were coming for her kid so this wasn't her getting up from dinner shocked and unaware. As to the no charge thing two thoughts. First you are wrong about the save face crap. DA's drop crap all the time because prosecuting would be a hassle and a negative for their office. Superiors in police depts tell officers that they will drop charges if it suits their needs. Cops are not backed up by the system in the way you seem to wish to believe. Second I said that I thought her arrest couldn't sustain charges because there wasn't a valid warrant for her son. It was signed hours latter. Now that doesn't automatically make her arrest unlawful because it's based on what the office believes not what is true, but if that belief is later found incorrect of course charges are dropped. She couldn't of obstructed serving a warrant that wasn't valid so the charges were dropped. If the cop thought the warrant was good then at the time it was a legal arrest. See how that works.

DEB wrote:I read this and I ask myself what would I do? First thank God my son has completed both High School and College without too much drama. But with that said, I considered myself then and now as the primary protector for my family. What happened to Policeman instead of Law Enforcement Person? I know it is hard doing verbal de-escalation but arresting a mother for doing what is natural? With the heightened tensions in this Nation concerning Government Enforcers and the people, you come to my home and without even talking with me and just want to snatch my child? What about the community's feelings toward L.E. now? All deference to EElis and others on this board, but the fight could be on. I didn't spend 21 years in the Military because I enjoyed it, it was for my Family first and foremost. I know I would lose the fight, be arrested or worse, but that is my makeup. I am not Mr. Brave, but my family is my family and others are strangers and possible dangers to my family unit. But, bring me in on what is going on, give me that chance to protect my family, through Lawyers, Pastors or whatnot and all will consider themselves winners. Or don't, everyone's choice...We can continue to make it an us against them, when in reality we usually have the same goals.

So cops legally come, because at that point the Mother was already aware and believed the officers were correct in having a warrant, to arrest your child for a major felony and because they don't show you a paper that they are not required to and wouldn't have on them under any normal circumstances and you say that "the fight would be on?" That is natural to you? Look I don't know maybe the cop over reacted and could of dealt with the Mother better but why in the heck would I assume the cop was in the wrong and if you think fighting the cops is so natural then why would you assume she stood there and in no way obstructed the police and just asked for a warrant? How do you know how long the cop may have spent trying to talk this lady down? You decided how you wanted the story to go the populated it with assumptions and strawmen.

paperchunker wrote:
Would it be ok to search the house if the officer thought that a warrant was going to be issued?

Different circumstance different procedure. A search warrant needs to be present and arrest warrant doesn't. Mind you I never said it was "OK". I clearly said they screwed up but that doesn't equate to the horror that some seem to believe occurred.

Dragonfighter wrote:

EEllis wrote:<SNIP>

Show me the law.

Ask and you shall receive.

Where? Nothing you posted says squat about showing anyone a warrant before arrest. There must be a signed warrant but the officers don't have to have it present nor do they have to show it before aresting anyone.

To come to your house, drag you from your home without a warrant requires one of the exceptions above. To drag a minor child (or anyone) from a home on a criminal complaint sworn out requires a warrant.. I do not believe those positing a "contempt of cop arrest" are the ones "ignorant of the law".

They must have a warrant but they don't have to show you or the kids Momma which is what I have said and you ignored. You are not making your point just showing you don't understand.

G26ster wrote: Whether you have a right to see a warrant or not, how does a mother "asking" to see one for her son constitute an offense? The warrant, issued or not, was not for her. Why are we commingling a warrant for the arrest of her son with the arrest of the mother? One has nothing to do with the other as I see it. And, if the police did nothing wrong, why is the department willing to apologize as long as she doesn't file suit?

According to the news that is not what she said. She said that she would not allow them to arrest her son without her first seeing the warrant. She does not have that authority and that is assuming she said it in that manner which I doubt. Since we don't know what the charge was going to be or have anything but her side I wouldn't get to far ahead of myself. As to why the Dept is willing to apologize? Well I think they screwed up. She was most likely arrested for obstruction so since there was never a valid warrant to obstruct she shouldn't of been arrested. I have no idea what the civil liability is but any lawsuit cost the dept money. If an apology shuts one down when they did make a mistake then they should do so. I just think that if the cop had waited a couple of hours for the warrant to be completed that her arrest sounds like it was within the law.

JP171 wrote:her child being a minor in her custody means she does have the right to see any warrant issued for her child period, the police may not even legally question the minor without either the parent or legal counsel present. so please let us stop being apologists for poor and illegal police work and actions, next issue unless I misremember there will be no formal charges against an 11yo child due to his age the court may order the child to be seen by a psychologist or psycho therapist but that is about as far as its going to go. the officers know this so again contempt of cop is the root of this whole mess and there is no such law!

Show me the law. Cops don't have to have the warrant to make an arrest so how the heck can anyone demand to see that warrant? This is not TV. Warrants are public info and if the accused request then they have to show a copy of said warrant to the person at a later time but not before an arrest. The warrant is supposed to be available at the clerks office where you can get a copy. The office arresting someone based on a warrant "shall then inform the defendant of the offense charged and of the fact that a warrant has been issued." but never does it say the cops can't arrest till Mommy says it's OK. What the court decides to do about the defendant has no effect of the legalities of his arrest and if not for the fact that the office came by a few hours before the judge signed the warrant I believe the mothers arrest legal so the whole "contempt of cop" accusation is basically ignorance of the law.