tvc184

No clue. The qb has been under pressure all game

End of 1, Nederland 20-10

On 4-2 WOS goes. Ball almost intercepted but over on downs to Nederland WOS 41

At 1:23 in 1, Nederland 20-10 after try blocked and returned for 2 points

44 yard drive for touchdown

Kicked to WOS 44 and taken by Nederland in the air.

Nederland gets pooch inside kick in the air

At 4:06 in 1, Nederland 14-8 on 2 point try.

78 yard touchdown run by Nederland

Like 20 yards beyond anyone. 8-6 WOS on 2 point try.

Blown coverage for touchdown pass for WOS

Looked like it. If ball goes out of endzone by its own momentum, is it safety or touchback?

After 2 first downs, WOS recovers fumble at own 49

WOS punts on 4-5. Muffed punt rolls out of endzone for touchback.

Yep

Return for touchdown called back on 2 major penalties. Ball brought back to WOS 41.

Nederland punts on 4-13 after sack.

WOS punts on 4-2 on first possession.

Yes. If the reporting officer lied, it is him and not the officer that made a reasonable detention based on information given. The main point is, if a reasonable officer would say… this doesn’t sound right…. he is still obligated to draw a reasonable conclusion and not really on information that he should know is wrong.

It is the Good Faith Exception. It works several ways but it is all linked together under the same rationale. One deals with the liability of an officer (civil and criminal) and the other is evidence gathered. Let’s say that an officer detains a person in Beaumont such as on a traffic stop. A warrant is found on the driver issued out of Houston and it is confirmed by the dispatcher. Obviously the officer in Beaumont can’t tell the guy with the warrant, “I need to drive to Houston to review the warrant and discuss the case with the officer and I’ll be back in about six hours so wait for me”. Heck, what if it was from another state? Wait here, I’ll be back in three days….. The officer serving the warrant in Beaumont is acting under good faith that the originating officer and the judge signing the warrant did their jobs correctly. If the officer in Houston or in another state made a mistake, is it the fault of the officer for making the arrest Beaumont? No. He acted in the good faith that the warrant was valid. If the warrant is later found to not have sufficient probable cause or is faulty in some other manner, it is not the fault of the officer in Beaumont. If it is not a warrant, the same doctrine applies. If Beaumont PD has a robbery and notifies area agencies of the vehicle and suspect description, can an officer from another agency stop a suspect vehicle? A couple have answered it correctly, yes. But only IF……. The vehicle or person detained has to reasonably match the information given by the originating agency. If BPD said two White males were seen in a small dark blue vehicle and another agency stops a pickup of any color with Black males…. Uhhhh, no. By the same reasoning, if BPD puts out information that the suspect vehicle left Beaumont approximately two minutes ago, at 12:05 AM and at 12:09 AM an officer around Orange stops a vehicle that does actually match the description, could the suspect vehicle have driven from Beaumont to Orange in 4 minutes? Again the answer is no. So the officer relying on information from another agency still is required to make a reasonable decision based on the information given. Receiving information from another officer is not carte blanche to start stopping everyone. Then the issue is, what about evidence found after a good faith detention, arrest or search? In the scenario I gave earlier, a BPD officer arrests a guy from Houston on a warrant. After what appears to be a lawful arrest, cocaine is found in the man’s pocket. Is it still admissible as evidence? The BPD officer made a lawful traffic stop (for example speeding) and made an arrest on what appeared to be a lawful warrant but it was later on appeal, found to be faulty. The officer in Beaumont clearly didn’t violate the person’s rights and didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment for making an unreasonable search because he had probable cause to believe that he was acting correctly. Is the evidence still valid to be used in court? I am not sure. From the cases I have seen, it appears as though the US Supreme Court says that it’s okay but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says it’s not okay. That would make it not okay if either court found it unlawful. So that is a Good Faith Exception. An officer is allowed to rely on what he believes to be valid information from another officer or from a warrant. That officer, however, still has to rely on a reasonable belief which is called “objective reasonableness” by the Supreme Court (the same standard for use of force). Objective reasonableness is defined by the Supreme Court as what a reasonable officer would believe when facing the same circumstances.

I just saw the notification. NISD did not provide adequate facilities for the production, according to the notice.

Yes, sometimes if the officer didn’t violate the person’s rights or commit a crime, qualified immunity will cover the officer. That isn’t the legal doctrine that allows an officer to take the word of another officer, especially when serving a warrant. Here is a googling tip. An officer arrested a guy on a warrant from out of his jurisdiction. On appeal the warrant was found to be faulty and therefore invalid. What, if anything, covers the arresting officer from liability?

That is absolutely….. incorrect. In fact PC is not required to detain, only reasonable suspicion. But that isn’t what I was looking for.

It’s terrible that those other people went down also. Collateral damage…..

Both are correct. Daily bonus points for the legal doctrine that generally (but not completely) covers an officer when taking the word of another officer. Google is allowed….