TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote: 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.

Who cares? What crime was the mother arrested for?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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.

Wait to be clear here for my personal edification, if there is an arrest warrant out they don't need to provide such to the custodial parent in attempting to apprehend the minor, and instead just note that there is an arrest out?

Pretty much. Get a scanner and listen to all of the traffic stops that result in an arrest because there is a warrant out for the person stopped, or even the passenger in the vehicle stopped. If they had to wait for some other agency to provide them with a copy of the warrant, then there would be an awful lot of cops just sitting around waiting for warrants to be delivered.

My point is that the cop said there was a warrant when there wasn't, and mom, probably from watching too many cop shows on TV, insisted on seeing it (rules are different for search warrants) and was arrested for something, which I still see as a violation of her rights, and an apology is just not adequate compensation.

bdickens wrote:

EEllis wrote: 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.

Who cares? What crime was the mother arrested for?

That's the question that seems to be getting lost here.

jimlongley wrote: My point is that the cop said there was a warrant when there wasn't, and mom, probably from watching too many cop shows on TV, insisted on seeing it (rules are different for search warrants) and was arrested for something, which I still see as a violation of her rights, and an apology is just not adequate compensation.

That's my concern also. If there WAS no warrant issued, at the time they first went to the house to make the arrest of the boy, then she could not have been guilty of obstructing the execution of it (Hindering Apprehension), which would seem to make HER arrest illegal. What her son did or did not do, and regardless of her right to see a legally issued warrant/DTA, there were no grounds to arrest either of them, AT THAT TIME.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

bdickens wrote:

EEllis wrote: 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.

Who cares? What crime was the mother arrested for?

That's the question that seems to be getting lost here.

POP is my guess

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

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.

Wait to be clear here for my personal edification, if there is an arrest warrant out they don't need to provide such to the custodial parent in attempting to apprehend the minor, and instead just note that there is an arrest out?

Cedar Park Dad, I don't understand your question in relation to you quoting me?

RX8er wrote:
Cedar Park Dad, I don't understand your question in relation to you quoting me?

That's part of the problem when you hit "quote" to reply to a particular poster from a post that has had multiple quotes from multiple posters. Who said what is lost. It would be nice when quoting a specific post, that one strips out all the subsequent quotes that don't apply, before posting one's reply. I'm sure I'm guilty of the above on occasion, but I do try not to do it.

G26ster wrote:

RX8er wrote:
Cedar Park Dad, I don't understand your question in relation to you quoting me?

That's part of the problem when you hit "quote" to reply to a particular poster from a post that has had multiple quotes from multiple posters. Who said what is lost. It would be nice when quoting a specific post, that one strips out all the subsequent quotes that don't apply, before posting one's reply. I'm sure I'm guilty of the above on occasion, but I do try not to do it.

My bad, trying to get a handle on where everything is at on the screen. I was just looking to clarify what the actual law requirements were.

Cedar Park Dad wrote: My bad, trying to get a handle on where everything is at on the screen. I was just looking to clarify what the actual law requirements were.

G26ster wrote:

RX8er wrote:
Cedar Park Dad, I don't understand your question in relation to you quoting me?

That's part of the problem when you hit "quote" to reply to a particular poster from a post that has had multiple quotes from multiple posters. Who said what is lost. It would be nice when quoting a specific post, that one strips out all the subsequent quotes that don't apply, before posting one's reply. I'm sure I'm guilty of the above on occasion, but I do try not to do it.

Ohhh come on now. This thread and replies are no problem. It's those that get 20 quotes nested.

I feel sometimes that I spend more time digging out the info from a multi-quote than I do reading. Oh well, just goes with the territory of internet forums.

gigag04 wrote:

bdickens wrote:
Who cares? What crime was the mother arrested for?

POP is my guess

ding...ding...ding...we have a winner! and THAT'S what all the fussing on here has been about.

That's how I read it. It was a POP arrest. The corresponding charge may or may not be valid, but shame on the media for not at least mentioning it.

Maybe I'm slow, but what is a POP arrest?

thank you Jag, I was afraid I was the only one...

Problem-oriented policing

http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=whatiscpop" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-oriented_policing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;