Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant

[Dragonfighter]

I understand that the officer does not need to show anyone the warrant IF it exists. However, what keeps getting glossed over is the fact that it did not exist at the time of the incident.

Exactly, and saying they had a warrant, or that one existed in any case, was a flat out lie.

Which answers my question, "Why were they going to issue an (coditional) apology if they did nothing wrong?" They did.

[EEllis]

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.

[texanjoker]

So many opinions - so little information...

[talltex]

So many opinions - so little information...

Feel free to enlighten us, rather than just insinuating that non-LEO's are incapable of reading or understanding a legal statute. My statement regarding the difference in the rules for LEO's and private citizens is nothing but my personal opinion and was presented as such. The crux of this discussion however, is about whether or not an officer has the legal right to arrest someone, for an offense which they did not witness, prior to a warrant/DTA having been issued by a judge. You stated: "Once the officers SAY they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/intereferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension"....etc. Therein lies the problem, it would seem. The Officer SAID he had a warrant, but in fact, it had not been issued by the judge until the following day. If so, then the mother was arrested for interefering with the execution of a warrant/DTA which didn't exist at that time, which certainly seems to meet the definition of a false arrest. So what are those of us with "so little information" missing?

[texanjoker]

So many opinions - so little information...

Feel free to enlighten us, rather than just insinuating that non-LEO's are incapable of reading or understanding a legal statute. My statement regarding the difference in the rules for LEO's and private citizens is nothing but my personal opinion and was presented as such. The crux of this discussion however, is about whether or not an officer has the legal right to arrest someone, for an offense which they did not witness, prior to a warrant/DTA having been issued by a judge. You stated: "Once the officers SAY they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/intereferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension"....etc. Therein lies the problem, it would seem. The Officer SAID he had a warrant, but in fact, it had not been issued by the judge until the following day. If so, then the mother was arrested for interefering with the execution of a warrant/DTA which didn't exist at that time, which certainly seems to meet the definition of a false arrest. So what are those of us with "so little information" missing?

Wow you got all that from me agreeing with a post? I have made some posts on this earlier. This entire discussion is on an alleged incident from an anonymous peraon via an attorney. I agreed there are not mamy or really any facts.

[SewTexas]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

Huh? What question are you trying to ask or do you just want to try and make it as confusing as possible? It really doesn't seem that complicated. Adults get warrants juvs get directives to apprehend. Warrants normally come from criminal court and directive to apprehend from family court. Both have to signed by a judge and have an affidavit swearing to the probable cause that exists for detaining the individual. Obviously at some point paperwork on the kid was sent to the court and the officer must have thought a directive to apprehend was approved. Why I don't know. Maybe someone told him incorrectly, maybe he just didn't check, perhaps the judge went home early, who knows. So an officer went out to arrest the defendant, a 11yo boy, on a very serious charge . By the way this town only has 10 ft officers. On going to the defendants house the mother, who had known that the police were coming for her boy and why they were doing so, refused to cooperate with the officer, demanding to see the "arrest warrant" before she would give custody of the defendant to the officer. We have no idea how long or what efforts the officer made to try and make the women understand the situation but the woman was stopping and interfering with an arrest and demanding something the officers are not required to provide. She wasn't asking she was stating that she would only comply with the law after she saw a warrant. You don't get to do that. Now someone screwed up big time. I don't know where the blame belongs. The police officer, someone else in the PD, The court, the clerk, the ADA, but there certainly was a screw up. There wasn't a signed order at the time the officer first went to arrest the defendant. Because of that the mother gets a break. She can't be prosecuted for her actions. The order was signed the next day and her kid was then arrested.


As an aside the court can appoint or assign persons other that law enforcement to execute warrants and directives to apprehend it they decide to do so but I see no evidence of that occurring in this case.

[SewTexas]

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.

Huh? What question are you trying to ask or do you just want to try and make it as confusing as possible? It really doesn't seem that complicated. Adults get warrants juvs get directives to apprehend. Warrants normally come from criminal court and directive to apprehend from family court. Both have to signed by a judge and have an affidavit swearing to the probable cause that exists for detaining the individual. Obviously at some point paperwork on the kid was sent to the court and the officer must have thought a directive to apprehend was approved. Why I don't know. Maybe someone told him incorrectly, maybe he just didn't check, perhaps the judge went home early, who knows. So an officer went out to arrest the defendant, a 11yo boy, on a very serious charge . By the way this town only has 10 ft officers. On going to the defendants house the mother, who had known that the police were coming for her boy and why they were doing so, refused to cooperate with the officer, demanding to see the "arrest warrant" before she would give custody of the defendant to the officer. We have no idea how long or what efforts the officer made to try and make the women understand the situation but the woman was stopping and interfering with an arrest and demanding something the officers are not required to provide. She wasn't asking she was stating that she would only comply with the law after she saw a warrant. You don't get to do that. Now someone screwed up big time. I don't know where the blame belongs. The police officer, someone else in the PD, The court, the clerk, the ADA, but there certainly was a screw up. There wasn't a signed order at the time the officer first went to arrest the defendant. Because of that the mother gets a break. She can't be prosecuted for her actions. The order was signed the next day and her kid was then arrested.


As an aside the court can appoint or assign persons other that law enforcement to execute warrants and directives to apprehend it they decide to do so but I see no evidence of that occurring in this case.

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. 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.

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"?

[Purplehood]

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.

Huh? What question are you trying to ask or do you just want to try and make it as confusing as possible? It really doesn't seem that complicated. Adults get warrants juvs get directives to apprehend. Warrants normally come from criminal court and directive to apprehend from family court. Both have to signed by a judge and have an affidavit swearing to the probable cause that exists for detaining the individual. Obviously at some point paperwork on the kid was sent to the court and the officer must have thought a directive to apprehend was approved. Why I don't know. Maybe someone told him incorrectly, maybe he just didn't check, perhaps the judge went home early, who knows. So an officer went out to arrest the defendant, a 11yo boy, on a very serious charge . By the way this town only has 10 ft officers. On going to the defendants house the mother, who had known that the police were coming for her boy and why they were doing so, refused to cooperate with the officer, demanding to see the "arrest warrant" before she would give custody of the defendant to the officer. We have no idea how long or what efforts the officer made to try and make the women understand the situation but the woman was stopping and interfering with an arrest and demanding something the officers are not required to provide. She wasn't asking she was stating that she would only comply with the law after she saw a warrant. You don't get to do that. Now someone screwed up big time. I don't know where the blame belongs. The police officer, someone else in the PD, The court, the clerk, the ADA, but there certainly was a screw up. There wasn't a signed order at the time the officer first went to arrest the defendant. Because of that the mother gets a break. She can't be prosecuted for her actions. The order was signed the next day and her kid was then arrested.


As an aside the court can appoint or assign persons other that law enforcement to execute warrants and directives to apprehend it they decide to do so but I see no evidence of that occurring in this case.

Are you normally this combative on your posts or am I just having a cranky Monday?

[mamabearCali]

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. 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.

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"?

[Keith B]

OK folks. This topic is getting way to heated. Cool down and discuss this civily or it will be locked.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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]

If an arrest warrant exists there is no requirement to produce it. The law does require that any person arrested be brought before a magistrate where they are informed if the charges. I think there is a 3 day time frame.

With juveniles it's different. Juvs get DTAs (directive to apprehend) and not warrants. Little functional difference.

Once the officers say they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/interferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension" (Tx PC 38.05). I don't know the details of the incident, but I have seen more than one parent go to jail in similiar circumstances.

Often times, roadside, many people claim that they have a right to see the warrant, or know what it's for, where its from, etc. In reality, once a peace officer makes the decision to place you under arrest, you are under arrest.

Thank you, looks like my questions has already been answered. Thanks!

[mojo84]

If an arrest warrant exists there is no requirement to produce it. The law does require that any person arrested be brought before a magistrate where they are informed if the charges. I think there is a 3 day time frame.

With juveniles it's different. Juvs get DTAs (directive to apprehend) and not warrants. Little functional difference.

Once the officers say they have a warrant/DTA, and any person hinders/interferes with the apprehension of the wanted, they are subject to arrest for "Hinder Apprehension" (Tx PC 38.05). I don't know the details of the incident, but I have seen more than one parent go to jail in similiar circumstances.

Often times, roadside, many people claim that they have a right to see the warrant, or know what it's for, where its from, etc. In reality, once a peace officer makes the decision to place you under arrest, you are under arrest.

Thank you, looks like my questions has already been answered. Thanks!

I wonder why they did not take both the Mother and kid in. Did they learn while there through radio communications that the warrant/DTA had not been issued yet so they decided to just take the mother in? If that's the case, did they go ahead and arrest the mother to make a point or did she actually do something that warranted the arrest above just talking and demanding a warrant? Did the officers enter the house? If so, were they invited in or given permission to enter? I think a lot more information is needed for me to establish a solid opinion on this ordeal.

[2firfun50]

Just a perspective from an actual case when my 14 yr old step son was arrested on a felony DTA. This happened in Denton County and here is how it went down. The constable served me with a valid arrest warrant and a court order to present my son at the juvenile detention center. When we arrived at the designated date and time, my son was read his rights in my presence. It was explained that since he was under 17 that he could not waive his rights and could not be questioned without a parent or attorney present. If necessary, the court would provide a special child advocate. I advised him to keep his silence until I got him attorney. He was detained at the center for 4 days until the bail hearing.

I believe something really is amiss in this case. We all know there are "bad apples" and a few "bad trees". Trust is earned thru adult, ethical behavior and it works both ways. Everyone who routinely deals with the public gets a performance review with each contact. Some of them may just come back to bite.