Slaton police arrest woman after request to see warrant

[EEllis]

And when the cop arrests you for asking what your son is being charged with or tells you it is none of your business (because that is that the cop thinks the law is).....which is pretty close to what happened here.....what then?

As a lay person I would expect a LEO at a door looking for a child to have their ducks on order. If I don't have my ducks in order and I interact with a LEO in a simple traffic stop I will be punished as far as the law allows.

As far as I can tell, she was arrested because the LEO did not want to take the time to explain things. She was in his way and he could not be bothered. That is not okay no matter how many people are on the force. If a particular agency has so few LEO's all the more important to cultivate good Public relations.

Well if you just want to make stuff up out of whole cloth ............ Look she knew they were coming and knew what the charges would be and I don't believe for a second the cops wouldn't tell her what the charge was. Why don't I believe that? Because that is the law. Her seeing a warrant before she would allow the officers to take custody isn't. (Actually they have to tell the defendant, I have no idea what Juvi law requires as far as parental notification). I think she was arrested because she made demands that she lawfully couldn't, and thus interfered with the officers duties. She is one of those idiots who scream "I know my rights!" as they are being hauled away to jail. The problem is they get confused between TV and real life. They don't "know their rights" and they push cops to far. It just so happens there was a screw up and the kid got to wait a day before being arrested for raping a 5yo girl. Yippee!

[RX8er]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

Sorry, you're right. I don't know the lady at all. I end up getting sucked in and taking a much stronger stance that i really want to. The fact is there is no right to view an arrest warrant in Texas. If the defendant doesn't have that right why would people think a kids Mom has it? No one wants to research their claims or the legal validity just make up stuff declaring it fact. Sure I used an actual insult towards the mother and I shouldn't have, but wasn't saying " She was in his way and he could not be bothered" as a fact even more insulting? If we find out more I may be very upset and call for the officers firing but so far we got that there was a mistake in issuing the warrant and that a Mom got lucky because she committed what would be a crime if the warrant was valid. Luckily for her it wasn't so she got to go home.

[Beiruty]

There is no need for an arrest warrant if the cop wants to arrest someone. There is search warrant that you can ask to see before they search your house/property.
I would say, stop talking, call your criminal defense lawyer, if you have no lawyer in mind, just try to be friend with one and keep his card in your pocket.

BTW, who is a criminal defense lawyer on this forum and his practice is in North Dallas or Collin County?

[DEB]

I read this and I ask myself what would I do? First thank God my son has completed both High School and College without too much drama. But with that said, I considered myself then and now as the primary protector for my family. What happened to Policeman instead of Law Enforcement Person? I know it is hard doing verbal de-escalation but arresting a mother for doing what is natural? With the heightened tensions in this Nation concerning Government Enforcers and the people, you come to my home and without even talking with me and just want to snatch my child? What about the community's feelings toward L.E. now? All deference to EElis and others on this board, but the fight could be on. I didn't spend 21 years in the Military because I enjoyed it, it was for my Family first and foremost. I know I would lose the fight, be arrested or worse, but that is my makeup. I am not Mr. Brave, but my family is my family and others are strangers and possible dangers to my family unit. But, bring me in on what is going on, give me that chance to protect my family, through Lawyers, Pastors or whatnot and all will consider themselves winners. Or don't, everyone's choice...We can continue to make it an us against them, when in reality we usually have the same goals.

So cops legally come, because at that point the Mother was already aware and believed the officers were correct in having a warrant, to arrest your child for a major felony and because they don't show you a paper that they are not required to and wouldn't have on them under any normal circumstances and you say that "the fight would be on?" That is natural to you? Look I don't know maybe the cop over reacted and could of dealt with the Mother better but why in the heck would I assume the cop was in the wrong and if you think fighting the cops is so natural then why would you assume she stood there and in no way obstructed the police and just asked for a warrant? How do you know how long the cop may have spent trying to talk this lady down? You decided how you wanted the story to go the populated it with assumptions and strawmen.

I don't know anything that occurred, just as you don't. We both were not there. You naturally defend the Officer, I don't. I am putting out my assumptions as all of us do during times like this. And yes it is natural for me to protect my child, even if my child is wrong. As my wife says, it is easier to make a fist than to open one's hand. Some kind of Korean saying. Also, EEllis thank you for the discussion. Discussions such as these really make me think about the what ifs and you opening my mind to other possibilities from the L.E.s viewpoint, I really appreciate it.

[talltex]

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.

Another example where "equal protection under the law" has been transformed into "different strokes for different folks". If an individual violates a law, they are guilty, regardless of whether or not they acted in good faith. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"...sound familiar? That's the standard our society holds ordinary, untrained citizens too. If THAT is what the legal systems demands of the CITIZENS, then shouldnt those undergoing special training and given special powers and authority to enforce those laws, be held to at least the same standard? In my business, I have to abide by a large number of special laws and regulations, and my failure to do so would result in severe civil and criminal penalties...if I tried to use the excuse that "well I sincerely believed I was doing it right", I 'd be laughed out of court.

[VMI77]

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.

Another example where "equal protection under the law" has been transformed into "different strokes for different folks". If an individual violates a law, they are guilty, regardless of whether or not they acted in good faith. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"...sound familiar? That's the standard our society holds ordinary, untrained citizens too. If THAT is what the legal systems demands of the CITIZENS, then shouldnt those undergoing special training and given special powers and authority to enforce those laws, be held to at least the same standard? In my business, I have to abide by a large number of special laws and regulations, and my failure to do so would result in severe civil and criminal penalties...if I tried to use the excuse that "well I sincerely believed I was doing it right", I 'd be laughed out of court.

Yes, it should. That is isn't is one of the problems that facilitate such incidents.

[gigag04]

So many opinions - so little information...

[K.Mooneyham]

I've stayed out of this one for one reason, and one reason only, but I will now add my two cents worth (and these days especially it ain't worth much). This has been several pages of back and forth about the powers of a government entity, as to what they can and cannot legally do and in what manner. However, I'm more curious as to why an 11 year old is accused of RAPING a 5 year old, and yet the mother doesn't even seem to be all that fired up about it, as to whether he did it or not, just that there was no piece of paper in hand to say law enforcement could take him away for the alleged actions. Seems to me that rape used to be a big deal...is it now just so commonplace that the attitude about it is "eh, no big deal"?

[Dragonfighter]

I've stayed out of this one for one reason, and one reason only, but I will now add my two cents worth (and these days especially it ain't worth much). This has been several pages of back and forth about the powers of a government entity, as to what they can and cannot legally do and in what manner. However, I'm more curious as to why an 11 year old is accused of RAPING a 5 year old, and yet the mother doesn't even seem to be all that fired up about it, as to whether he did it or not, just that there was no piece of paper in hand to say law enforcement could take him away for the alleged actions. Seems to me that rape used to be a big deal...is it now just so commonplace that the attitude about it is "eh, no big deal"?

Just from a person who has been on the plaintiff side of a juvenile sexual assault, I am not surprised at all about how willing the mom was to interfere with the son facing consequences. I would also be less surprised to find out that friends and relatives are all rallying around the kid and the accusing mom and little girl are facing bullying and gossip.

To the warrant. A warrant was necessary for the arrest, they informed the mom there was a warrant (which is what the law requires) and she asked (demanded?) to see it. Weeellll, SHE was arrested and the alleged rapist was left there.

It would seem to me that in serving a warrant, there would be one present as there was time to produce one, unlike a warrant hit when an LEO is doing a roadside stop and now has a flight risk. At any rate, asking to see the warrant is not a cause to arrest (Is it LEO's?) and though we don't know the whole story the fact that the department is willing to issue a (conditional on her not suing) apology says that they know they've screwed up.

They could have told her that she could see it "as soon as possible" which the law requires as in, "Ma'am there is a warrant sworn for your son's arrest a copy will be presented to you for review as soon as possible." Of course that assumes reasonable behavior which was notably absent in this case.

EElis:

From our last exchange,

To come to your house, drag you from your home without a warrant requires one of the exceptions above. To drag a minor child (or anyone) from a home on a criminal complaint sworn out requires a warrant.. I do not believe those positing a "contempt of cop arrest" are the ones "ignorant of the law".

They must have a warrant but they don't have to show you or the kids Momma which is what I have said and you ignored. You are not making your point just showing you don't understand.

When I weighed in it seemed you had moved from not showing the warrant to not needing one. A subtle but significant difference.

[gigag04]

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.

[Dragonfighter]

If a 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.

Appreciate the clarification and the answer. A little OT: As I read it, Chapter 15 seemed to say "as soon as possible" for producing a copy and that the LEO must inform of the warrant with a summation of charges on that warrant. So does the 3 days apply there as well or just how long they can be held before arraignment?

[EEllis]

When I weighed in it seemed you had moved from not showing the warrant to not needing one. A subtle but significant difference.

Rereading it was poor word choice. If they are arresting someone on a warrant, then while there needs to be a good warrant somewhere but they don't need it or any copy with them to execute that warrant and nothing I see mandates their showing anyone a warrant at the time of arrest. If they happen to have it they should go ahead and show it but it may or may not be ok to wait quite awhile depending on what courts have held in the past.

Art. 15.26. AUTHORITY TO ARREST MUST BE MADE KNOWN. In executing a warrant of arrest, it shall always be made known to the accused under what authority the arrest is made. The warrant shall be executed by the arrest of the defendant. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, provided the warrant was issued under the provisions of this Code, but upon request he shall show the warrant to the defendant as soon as possible. If the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of arrest he shall then inform the defendant of the offense charged and of the fact that a warrant has been issued. The arrest warrant, and any affidavit presented to the magistrate in support of the issuance of the warrant, is public information, and beginning immediately when the warrant is executed the magistrate's clerk shall make a copy of the warrant and the affidavit available for public inspection in the clerk's office during normal business hours. A person may request the clerk to provide copies of the warrant and affidavit on payment of the cost of providing the copies.

[paperchunker]

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.

Following this thread is like watching a Jay Carney news briefing. Some people will never admit their side might have made a mistake.

[jimlongley]

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.