Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant

[RX8er]

"I told him, 'I will release my son to you upon viewing those orders.' Those were exactly my words," The complainant said. "He said, 'This is how you want to play?' He took two steps back, turned around to the officer and said, 'Take her.' They turned me around, handcuffed me, and took me in."

The complainant said she was aware police would be coming to apprehend her 11-year-old son based on a criminal complaint, and that she just wanted to see the warrant. As it turns out, that warrant didn't exist. She spent the night in jail while her son was left at home.

http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/ ... tvqGg.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dave2]

Well, someone needs to go to jail over that...

[longtooth]

I have a nephew who lives there.
If that is the whole story she needs to SEW their badge & guns off.

[jimlongley]

"McDonald said the Slaton Police Department will issue an apology as long as the mother agrees not to file a lawsuit. He said unless she is compensated for her expenses and the trauma she's been through, a lawsuit won't be out of the question. "

Contempt of cop arrest followed by a stonewall.

Seems to me the following might apply: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They couldn't present a warrant because at that time there was none, so they just went ahead and violated her rights, more than once.

[bdickens]

I hope she tells the Department to take their apology and stuff it.

[RoyGBiv]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Civil rights violation. Clearly.
At minimum the LEO should be unemployed. Then we can start to talk about restitution.

[old farmer]

The lesson is be prepared to go to jail if you say no to a "fill in the agency of choice". Your Freedom is related to the amount power(money) you have and the lawyers.

[MoJo]

I've seen this movie before it was called "The Gestapo Calls" and was in German.

[mamabearCali]

uh-no....an apology is not good enough. A person asks to see a warrant....you by law must show it or go home. You don't arrest a person for exercising their rights. Someone else needs to be in jail. Civil Rights violations, false imprisonment.....I am sure a lawyer could think up a few more things.

[ajwakeboarder]

If the founders were alive today I don't think they'd be able to differentiate these officers from the British. These officers need to lose their jobs.

[The Annoyed Man]

Some of the comments below the story are instructive....

[Redneck_Buddha]

Not the only problem Slaton PD has had recently:

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1106/110602lubbock.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Federal grand jury indicts former Slaton, Texas, police officer on child pornography charges

LUBBOCK, Texas – A federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment on Wednesday charging a former Slayton, Texas police officer with various federal child pornography offenses, announced U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas.

[mamabearCali]

Some of the comments below the story are instructive....

The ones about the cops IQ......I don't think we allow that sort of discussion here. It borders on cop bashing. Perhaps you are seeing different comments than I am.

[The Annoyed Man]

Some of the comments below the story are instructive....

The ones about the cops IQ......I don't think we allow that sort of discussion here. It borders on cop bashing. Perhaps you are seeing different comments than I am.

I was referring to different ones....specifically the one that said:

This NON WORKING MOM....and her ambulance chasing lawyer are out to GET A CHECK. Her 11 year old son raped a five year old girl.

Nothing against non-working stay-at-home moms whose husbands are gainfully employed, but that particular comment made it sound like something else. It may be complete nonsense too. I don't know...I don't live there.

[gthaustex]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Civil rights violation. Clearly.
At minimum the LEO should be unemployed. Then we can start to talk about restitution.

The scary thing about this is that this type of thing seems to be more common these days, or maybe it is just getting more airtime. That said, I don't think this lack of understanding of the 4th Amendment runs wholesale throughout the LEO community in general.