TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

pt145ss wrote:
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

No, "effecting" is correct.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles <effect a settlement of the dispute>
3 : to put into operation <the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens>


I would definitely change this, though:

I believe this is relevant because both the TX Criminal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS analogies a traffic stop to that of a terry stop.

I've never seen "analogies" used as a verb.

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

pt145ss wrote:
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

No, "effecting" is correct.

KBCraig wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

pt145ss wrote:
Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

No, "effecting" is correct.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: effect
Function: transitive verb
1 : to cause to come into being
2 : to bring about often by surmounting obstacles <effect a settlement of the dispute>
3 : to put into operation <the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens>


I would definitely change this, though:

I believe this is relevant because both the TX Criminal Court of Appeals and SCOTUS analogies a traffic stop to that of a terry stop.

I've never seen "analogies" used as a verb.

pt145ss wrote:I plan on responding to the chief with something similar to the letter below:

Mr. Blake:

I appreciate your response to my recent inquiry about Kyle PD policies.

Please be assured that I am not questioning your integrity or your 30 + years of experience and I salute you and all your colleagues for your selfless service to our community.

I must admit though that I am a little disappointed with your response. All though you do not say it directly, it seems that you insinuate that one could be placed in custodial arrest for refusing to answer questions about employment.

Sincerely,
Jim

pt145ss wrote:he asked his question, we gave him a response, that’s what he is entitled to. We don’t have to debate it – nor does he have to agree with our policies or response. Don’t feel compelled to respond any further.

mr.72 wrote:

pt145ss wrote:I plan on responding to the chief with something similar to the letter below:

OK apart from my disagreement with your position that the officer should not refrain from asking these questions, I think your letter is well-written and right on. However please correct your two spelling errors before sending it:

...back to my original correspondents in which...

I think you mean correspondence

Hence, effecting a custodial arrest...

I think you mean affecting

Other than that, rock on man!!

agbullet2k1 wrote:Or maybe it's the tone of complete arrogance.

Mr. X:

Thank you for your response.

It may be a perceptual error on your part, but there was no insinuation regarding the arrest of individuals who fails to provide employment information.

A certain percentage of citations written by officers involve individuals who are unemployed; they are not summarily placed under custodial arrest. They are typically released with a citation just as you.

I do not recall advising you in my email that failure to provide employment information as grounds for arrest. Neither Texas , nor any other State that I am aware, have statutes mandating individuals to provide that information, or criminal penalties for failure to do so. I would assume that all licensed Texas peace officers are aware of that fact.

Yes, I and other sworn members of the department do possess copies of the Texas Penal Code.

I trust that we have brought successful closure to your inquiry.

Regards,

Michael Blake