Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant

[Beiruty]

What was she charged with?

[texanjoker]

That article is pretty vague and there is not enough factual info for me to jump to a conclusion one way or another. Stories like this get posted and they cause anti govt beliefs without any proof that any violation was even committed. In this case an anonymous person is telling an attorney that wasn't there her side of the story. I'd be curious to hear the LE side of the story and read the arrest report.

There is no proof that the leo's could not arrest her son prior to a warrant being signed. LEO's can and do make arrests all the time w/o a warrant. As an example of that, this anonymous lady was allegedly arrested and based on the limited story they wouldn't have had a warrant for her. A leo makes an arrest based on probable cause that a crime had been committed and then has a judge sign the affidavit after the arrest.

There are many reasons they may not have gone back including time past where they now wanted a warrant; calls for service and no units available; that officer's shift ended, ect.

If somebody up in that area reads more articles with facts please post them.

[JP171]

That article is pretty vague and there is not enough factual info for me to jump to a conclusion one way or another. Stories like this get posted and they cause anti govt beliefs without any proof that any violation was even committed. In this case an anonymous person is telling an attorney that wasn't there her side of the story. I'd be curious to hear the LE side of the story and read the arrest report.

There is no proof that the leo's could not arrest her son prior to a warrant being signed. LEO's can and do make arrests all the time w/o a warrant. As an example of that, this anonymous lady was allegedly arrested and based on the limited story they wouldn't have had a warrant for her. A leo makes an arrest based on probable cause that a crime had been committed and then has a judge sign the affidavit after the arrest.

There are many reasons they may not have gone back including time past where they now wanted a warrant; calls for service and no units available; that officer's shift ended, ect.

If somebody up in that area reads more articles with facts please post them.

Have you ever considered that the anti gubbermint feelings are warranted? Having a request written for a warrant after the fact to me is a bit irregular, if the offense was committed and the LEO knew about it at the time and witnessed it the arrest is immediate fine, if its a complaint filed after the fact the DA should have know to get a warrant, on the surface this seems like the DA told the LEO after the fact to go arrest this kid for a sexual assault with no warrant but merely on his say so, sorry that's illegal detention, false imprisonment official oppression and probably others I'm not even thinking about along with civil rights violations along with the fact that the child was not taken into custody due to contempt of cop that will be called oh hmmm interference with a LEO in the performance of his duties, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, just to name a few. the LEO was and is wrong for obeying an illegal order by the DA and the DA is guilty of a lot more, felony kidnaping for the LEO and the entire book at the DA in a federal prison, Leavenworth sounds good to me, the military side if you please

[RX8er]

That article is pretty vague and there is not enough factual info for me to jump to a conclusion one way or another. Stories like this get posted and they cause anti govt beliefs without any proof that any violation was even committed. In this case an anonymous person is telling an attorney that wasn't there her side of the story. I'd be curious to hear the LE side of the story and read the arrest report.

There is no proof that the leo's could not arrest her son prior to a warrant being signed. LEO's can and do make arrests all the time w/o a warrant. As an example of that, this anonymous lady was allegedly arrested and based on the limited story they wouldn't have had a warrant for her. A leo makes an arrest based on probable cause that a crime had been committed and then has a judge sign the affidavit after the arrest.

There are many reasons they may not have gone back including time past where they now wanted a warrant; calls for service and no units available; that officer's shift ended, ect.

If somebody up in that area reads more articles with facts please post them.

I don't disagree that there are still facts missing but I think there is damaging info. I find it interesting that the entire city staff is not out stating different. The fact that they have said nothing is very telling IMO.

When does the ability to arrest me with or without a warrant change? For example, if I rob someone when do you have to go get paper to arrest me? Can you arrest me same day, next day, next week? What facts are involved in the ability to arrest me without one? Can I go to the police and say that texanjoker did something illegal to me and the police will arrest you and then go to a judge for a warrant?

What makes it necessary for LEO to get a warrant? I ask because I truly do not know the answers.

[C-dub]

Regarding the "arrest" of the mother, how close does this come to felony aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment, or something like that? Assuming she was well within her rights to ask to see the warrant and all. Or is it not really close because it is LE?

[G.A. Heath]

Quick observations:
1. While the comment claims the 11 year old male suspect sexually assaulted a 5 year old female we have no clue if that is really the case.
2. After arresting the mother the suspect they went to arrest was not taken into custody until much later.

So if they could afford to wait in order arrest him, as they did, I suspect a warrant would be required.

[AEA]

Regarding the "arrest" of the mother, how close does this come to felony aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment, or something like that? Assuming she was well within her rights to ask to see the warrant and all. Or is it not really close because it is LE?

Good questions.......I think she needs a good lawyer.

[EEllis]

People do realize that cops don't need to have a paper warrant in their possession to arrest someone right? It's not like a search warrant where you must show it before hand. That being said someone obviously screwed up. There was no valid warrant for the child at the time the mother was arrested. The warrant was issued the next day. If I had to guess I would say that that the paperwork was turned in and the cops thought it would be valid and failed to verify the warrant like they should but I don't know the dept policy or procedure and/or how badly they violated it or if they did so on attempting to arrest on what was not a valid warrant so right now it's hard to say anything about it. I will say that I fail to see where in Texas law police are required to show warrants to arresties or their parents.

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.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1736, ch. 659, Sec. 13, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.
Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 390, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Now I don't want to lower our standards and let cops do anything they want but it sure looks like it might of just been a mix up and if the cops had come in the morning the mom would of gone to jail and the charges would of stuck. She has no right to examine an arrest warrant and no ability to prevent the police from serving that warrant. She just got lucky that some cop or DA screwed up.

[EEllis]

Regarding the "arrest" of the mother, how close does this come to felony aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment, or something like that? Assuming she was well within her rights to ask to see the warrant and all. Or is it not really close because it is LE?

She has no right to see a warrant before an arrest. As long as the police were acting in good faith, if they believed they where acting in accordance with the law even if their actions were later found to be contrary to the law then there wouldn't be any criminal liability. If the officers knew and believed they were operating in contrary to the law then there could be several State and Federal Charges. Since here arrest sure seems like it would of been legal, tho we don't know the exact charge, if the warrant had been signed at the time instead of hours later, making sweeping statements about the conduct of the police seems a bit kneejerk right now.

[G26ster]

Regarding the "arrest" of the mother, how close does this come to felony aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment, or something like that? Assuming she was well within her rights to ask to see the warrant and all. Or is it not really close because it is LE?

She has no right to see a warrant before an arrest. As long as the police were acting in good faith, if they believed they where acting in accordance with the law even if their actions were later found to be contrary to the law then there wouldn't be any criminal liability. If the officers knew and believed they were operating in contrary to the law then there could be several State and Federal Charges. Since here arrest sure seems like it would of been legal, tho we don't know the exact charge, if the warrant had been signed at the time instead of hours later, making sweeping statements about the conduct of the police seems a bit kneejerk right now.

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?

[JP171]

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!

[EEllis]

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.

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.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>

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? <SNIP> 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.

Ask and you shall receive.

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1735, ch. 659, Sec. 8, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.


Art. 14.02. WITHIN VIEW OF MAGISTRATE. A peace officer may arrest, without warrant, when a felony or breach of the peace has been committed in the presence or within the view of a magistrate, and such magistrate verbally orders the arrest of the offender.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.


Art. 14.03. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICERS. (a) Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant:

(1) persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws; [Immediate suspicion - KSC]

(2) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an assault resulting in bodily injury to another person and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that there is danger of further bodily injury to that person;

(3) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an offense defined by Section 25.07, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order), or by Section 38.112, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order issued on basis of sexual assault), if the offense is not committed in the presence of the peace officer;

(4) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an offense involving family violence;

(5) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have prevented or interfered with an individual's ability to place a telephone call in an emergency, as defined by Section 42.062(d), Penal Code, if the offense is not committed in the presence of the peace officer; or

(6) a person who makes a statement to the peace officer that would be admissible against the person under Article 38.21 and establishes probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony.

(b) A peace officer shall arrest, without a warrant, a person the peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed an offense under Section 25.07, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order), or Section 38.112, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order issued on basis of sexual assault), if the offense is committed in the presence of the peace officer.

(c) If reasonably necessary to verify an allegation of a violation of a protective order or of the commission of an offense involving family violence, a peace officer shall remain at the scene of the investigation to verify the allegation and to prevent the further commission of the violation or of family violence.

(d) A peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer's presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Chapter 42 or 49, Penal Code, or a breach of the peace. A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall, as soon as practicable after making the arrest, notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06 of this code.

(e) The justification for conduct provided under Section 9.21, Penal Code, applies to a peace officer when the peace officer is performing a duty required by this article.

(f) In this article, "family violence" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.004, Family Code.

(g)(1) A peace officer listed in Subdivision (1), (2), or (5), Article 2.12, who is licensed under Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, and is outside of the officer's jurisdiction may arrest without a warrant a person who commits any offense within the officer's presence or view, other than a violation of Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code.

(2) A peace officer listed in Subdivision (3), Article 2.12, who is licensed under Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, and is outside of the officer's jurisdiction may arrest without a warrant a person who commits any offense within the officer's presence or view, except that an officer described in this subdivision who is outside of that officer's jurisdiction may arrest a person for a violation of Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code, only if the offense is committed in the county or counties in which the municipality employing the peace officer is located.

(3) A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall as soon as practicable after making the arrest notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of:

(A) the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06; and

(B) any property seized during or after the arrest as if the property had been seized by a peace officer of that law enforcement agency.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1735, ch. 659, Sec. 9, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.

-em mine

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".

[paperchunker]

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.

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.

IF the officer had informed her of the charge (that did not exist) and of the fact that a warrant had been issued (had not been) it would have been OK ?

IF a frog had wings...

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

[DEB]

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.