Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant

[2firfun50]

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.

My first thought on the meaning of a POP arrest isn't quite the same as the Wiki info if you what I mean.

[SQLGeek]

I think it meant "Peed Off Police"?

[EEllis]

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.

[EEllis]

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]

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.

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.

[talltex]

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;

lol....not exactly the meaning we are talking about

[texanjoker]

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.

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.

Everybody is assuming this anonymous mom is telling the truth..... I have not seen one shred of evidence about her alleged arrest. Her attorney is worried about her being googled yet they didn't mention her name. People only know about this because of their statement.

[Right2Carry]

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.

A traffic stop I can understand not having the arrest warrant available and that is probably why the law is written as such. I know these are probably treated the same but I can't for the life of me figure out why you would send officers out to a residence to execute an arrest warrant and not send a copy with them. This is not a traffic stop, but a planned arrest at a residence. It just seems like good practice to have a copy of the warrant to avoid the exact situation that happen in this case.

[EEllis]

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.

[cb1000rider]

My first thought on the meaning of a POP arrest isn't quite the same as the Wiki info if you what I mean.

Sorry, it's a semi-internal Law Enforcement term. It means "irritated Police".

It's used for a range of things.. Anything from a valid arrest that wouldn't have occurred until an officer got offended to an invalid arrest on a "typical" low bar charge like disturbing the peace.

[gigag04]

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.

A traffic stop I can understand not having the arrest warrant available and that is probably why the law is written as such. I know these are probably treated the same but I can't for the life of me figure out why you would send officers out to a residence to execute an arrest warrant and not send a copy with them. This is not a traffic stop, but a planned arrest at a residence. It just seems like good practice to have a copy of the warrant to avoid the exact situation that happen in this case.

Because not all warrants are local.

[RottenApple]

At this point, why is this even under discussion? There's not enough info to know how it went down. It might have been as simple as.....

Cop: We're here to arrest your kid.
Mom: I want to see the warrant
Cop: You're under arrest.

In which case, yeah, the cop is in the wrong. Or it could have been.....

Cop: We're here to arrest your kid.
Mom: I want to see the warrant.
Cop: It's an arrest warrant, ma'am, and we don't need to have it with us to show you. But you can come down to the station and everything can be explained then.
Mom: You aren't taking my kid!
Cop: Ma'am, we really don't need your permission here. Please let us do our job. You'll be able to see your son down at the station and we can sort it all out there.
Mom: No!
Cop: Ok. Well, I'm sorry to do this, but you're under arrest.

In which case, the cop is just doing his job. Yes, I know there is an issue with there not having actually been a warrant at that time, but the officer may not have known that and was acting in good faith.

So while y'all are , we still don't have enough information to go on.

[gigag04]

Boom ^

[Hoosier Daddy]

In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

[VMI77]

In the second case, why didn't they also take the child into custody.

Weren't they worried he was a flight risk?

This image reflects something lost. It would be just about impossible to take seriously these days. If it was updated the intent would probably be ironic or satirical.