TexasCHLforum.com

I'm interested to see how much money he ends up getting out of all this.

The Habernatho wrote:I'm interested to see how much money he ends up getting out of all this.

I could careless about the money, I want to know if there is a pattern of behavior like this in the CPD?

srothstein wrote:There are two points to take into account on this. The first and most important is that this is an edited video and not continuous coverage that the news is showing. I am always very leery of edited videos. Even given that, the news story does make it look very bad for the police involved. The big questions is what evidence he will have of the second assault while walking down the hallway. The second point is that we do not yet know enough about the subsequent arrest. If the police filed the charges on him, they would have had the warrant by the time he came back in. That arrest might be legal, even though the news story makes it look like it was revenge. Resisting and failure to display a CHL are both misdemeanors. You can arrest at the scene or with a warrant, but not legally arrest without the warrant several days later.

srothstein,
Always value your wise comments and would like some clarification on this one for my education. First, I agree that if things had stopped after the original encounter, and them given the guy the dashcam tape when he asked for it, there would be minimal risk of them getting in trouble. There was some mis-understanding, but the guy got out of the car, said he had a CHL (which could be interpreted as a threat, even if it wasn't), and they got him under control. Too much force? Probably. Enough over the top to bring a lawsuit? Doubtful. And I doubt there's any evidence of the assault walking down the hall at the police station.

However, I would have thought that the subsequent arrest (which is on the record, I take it, since the DA refused to prosecute) would be completely over the top and clear indication of the intent to intimidate. I thought if they were going to arrest you for resisting arrest, that arrest would have to be made immediately, at the scene. And that would show that arresting the guy weeks later was purely for intimidation. But what is this about a warrant that you mention? I understand a warrant to search your house, or to arrest someone because you know they committed a crime but haven't been able to find them yet. But I am not familiar with this warrant for a crime where police were present, and did not arrest the person on the spot, but instead released him and went to the judge to get a warrant and then arrest him way after the fact? I'm not sure my tone will come across correctly on this so let me just state clearly that I'm not being sarcastic or anything like that, I just don't understand that type of warrant and what the process is and would like to be educated if you have the time.

Thanks!

SlowDave,

No problem. The confusion is in how an arrest warrant and arrests work. The thing to remember is that our laws are very discretionary. They state the police MAY arrest for most offenses that they are present for. Other than the one case of a person violating a protective order in the presence of an officer, the police do not have to make any arrests at the time. In many cases, the police will decide not to arrest at the time so they can have the evidence tested or the case reviewed by a judge or district attorney. In case like that, the police have to get an arrest warrant to make the arrest, just as if they had not been present.

There is one type of case where this happens often that most people are familiar with. Consider an accident where a driver is drunk and the other people are injured. The police will usually want to file the intoxicated assault charge, but they don't do it immediately. They take the drunk to the hospital for a blood sample, then send this sample to the police lab for testing. They also complete the investigation and have the case, with the evidence of the lab report, reviewed by the DA. Then they get an arrest warrant for intoxication assault.

This helps the police to not make a mistake and press charges for the wrong offense. And it helps prevent us from losing cases due to the speedy trial act (which used to guarantee a trial within a set number of days from the arrest). Now, the police must be ready in a reasonable time. But while they get the evidence ready and look for the right experts to help them if the case is complicated, not arresting doesn't start the clock like an arrest would.

And, of course, while the system was not set up to do this, it allows the police to release someone at the scene and then change their minds and file charges on him later. This is a possibility of what happened in this case, though I tend to think it was intimidation. I just like to make sure we consider all the possibilities before we lynch people or departments.

Thanks Steve. Excellent clear explanation, as usual. Great to have you around here.

marksiwel wrote:

The Habernatho wrote:I'm interested to see how much money he ends up getting out of all this.

I could careless about the money, I want to know if there is a pattern of behavior like this in the CPD?

Yup.

Anyone seen updates on this story? Last I saw he was filing a law suit.

wgoforth wrote:Anyone seen updates on this story? Last I saw he was filing a law suit.

Just found this link. I didn't click the Docket links but it appears to be ongoing. Slow wheels of the Justice System turning......... creaking sound!

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circui ... /11-10020/

Thank you mucho!

wgoforth wrote:Thank you mucho!

No problemo. You're Welcome. Mucho!

puma guy wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Thank you mucho!

No problemo. You're Welcome. Mucho!

Wow, both your Espanol is mucho goodo.

srothstein wrote:They take the drunk to the hospital for a blood sample, then send this sample to the police lab for testing.

Very few, if any, police departments have their own labs. State police and the feds are just about the only ones that do. Some really big ones do, but most don't and especially for situations like this the blood alcohol test is just run at the hospital where the blood is drawn. There are issues with licensing, competency, proficiency testing, and compliance that most police departments just don't what to deal with.

My wife has been eliminated from a couple of jury pools because she used to work in a hospital lab that performed these tests for the local PD. When the defense attorney asked if she could read and interpret a BAC (blood alcohol content) report she replied, "Yes." She was dismissed. Can't have anyone on the jury he can't blow smoke into.

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Thank you mucho!

No problemo. You're Welcome. Mucho!

Wow, both your Espanol is mucho goodo.

I learned from Peggy Hill! Though put to good use in my youth the only real Spanish I know is useless now as I no longer drink. "Senor, dos cervezas frio por favor; uno para mi y uno para mi amigo." Spelling don't count. Neither does punctuation!

The link provided indicates that this filing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Would that mean that there was a lower court ruling?

The original suit was filed in the Norther Texas District Court. Here is the original suit that was filed: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28224957/Shom ... Carrollton" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The original officer's response: http://www.scribd.com/Tatom-Answer/d/28824107" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:My wife has been eliminated from a couple of jury pools because she used to work in a hospital lab that performed these tests for the local PD. When the defense attorney asked if she could read and interpret a BAC (blood alcohol content) report she replied, "Yes." She was dismissed. Can't have anyone on the jury he can't blow smoke into.

I got eliminated from a jury pool in TX in 2005 because I had taken an accident investigation course as a volunteer fireman in upstate NY more than 30 years before. The prosecution eliminated me, the defense said they had no objection to me. A the time I was one of about 30 people left in the room.