tvc184

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….

An officer in Beaumont witnesses a crime (shooting, burglary, robbery, etc). The suspect jumps into a vehicle and gets away before the officer can get turned around in traffic. The officer puts out an attempt to locate to area police departments like Nederland, Vidor, Port Arthur and so on with a description of the vehicle. Twenty-five minutes later an officer in Port Arthur sees a vehicle that fits the description given by BPD almost half an hour ago. Can the PAPD officer use the word of a BPD officer, as relayed through a dispatcher, as justification to detain the person or even do a felony traffic stop? I guess I’m asking, can an officer from one jurisdiction, give probable cause to another officer in another jurisdiction several miles away that justifies police action?

But other than that what do you have?

But where does freedom end? It certainly has limits and to simply claim that freedom freedom doesn’t cover it. Beliefs cannot be legislated. Actions can. A guy could say that he thinks it is morally wrong to take a plant like marijuana and tell people they could go to jail for using it. Yet where he perceives as his moral freedom isn’t valid in law. If a guy says that he believes everyone should feel comfortable in their own body and he should be able to teach school completely nude, whose morality wins that legal battle? I have no clue what to do with a cross dresser or transgender teaching at a school. I know that the Supreme Court has said that rules could be put in place if they restrict things that would disrupt teaching. That goes as far as punishing students for off-campus activities within certain parameters. More harm or less harm, no matter how valid (and I completely understand the point), should enter into the conversation. When talking about children at school, it should be no harm and not less harm I don’t have an answer, but I know you don’t consider freedom is freedom as a final answer. Certainly there are limits to a teacher’s behavior. Where should the limits be is the question. .

Fixed it for you….

Not according to his page….

They were improved, especially running the ball.

Game after 3 quarters. 14-12

WB with about 165 yards near the end of the third quarter 95 of it on penalties…..

Halftime. WB 14 Nederland 6