tvc184

Case: Confession in a sexual assault and murder of a 14 year old girl. Notable points: A 17 is an adult in Texas under criminal law. There is no need to get certified as an adult. A person ceases to be a child on his 17th birthday. Also, if a person consents to talking with the police (not being detained), consents to a search, consents to give a statement, etc., the police are not required to have probable cause. A person can consent to any of that. Case: A 14 year old girl had been sexually assaulted by her 19 year old half brother. Apparently this was an ongoing relationship and what used to be called statutory rape or sex with an underage child whether with consent or not. One day the half brother stabbed his sister to death, I believe after having sex with her. Maybe to keep her from reporting the assaults but I am not sure. In any case he confessed after volunteering to take a polygraph and failing. The case is not about him however. In the confession the brother implicated another person who was a 17 year old adult. The police showed up at the 17 year old’s home at 3am. The homeowner, father of the 17 year old, consented to allow officers to enter the home and speak to the 17 year old. The officers (3?) went to the bedroom and woke the 17 year old up. They said, we need to talk and the 17 year old said “okay”. These facts do not appear to be in dispute. So it’s not like the police gave one version and the 17 year old (or family) another. The police led him to the police unit since he had consented to speak with the officers by saying “okay” when asked. He was only wearing the T-shirt and boxers that he was sleeping in. The officers told him that he was not in custody but had to be handcuffed if in the back of the unit. He would have the handcuffs removed at the police station. Once arriving at the police station, the police took off the handcuffs and asked if he wished to talk. Even though he was told that he was not in custody, he was given his rights under Miranda to make sure that he was volunteering to speak with officers. It was kind of like a safeguard just to make sure he agreed to talk. After being read Miranda, the 17-year-old agreed to talk. He was confronted about the 19 year old’s confession that implicated him. Being confronted with that fact, he confessed to taking part in the crime. He did not specifically admit to taking part in the actual killing however under Texas law, if you take any part in a crime, then you to be charged with a crime. After that confession, the trial judge admitted the statement as evidence at the trial. The 17 year old was convicted and I believe given 35 years in prison. He appealed to the district appeals court, and they agreed with the trial judge, the confession was with consent. He made his final appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (supreme court for criminal law) and they simply refused to hear the case. The 17 year old then appealed to the federal system, saying that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. So even though the police were allowed with consent to another home and to speak with a 17-year-old, asked him to go speak to the officers and he said okay, was told that he was not in custody, was put in handcuffs just for the trip but then they were removed immediately after arriving at the station, was read the Miranda warning, just to make sure he understood that he was consenting to giving a statement and after being confronted with the fact that the 19-year-old had already confessed, his lawyer claimed that his rights were violated. Good confession or a violation of rights? In the Police Academy I would ask the cadets, if you say it was a lawful confession with consent, why? If you say it was an unlawful confession, why?

Yep. Strangely enough, people will voluntarily open the door with a half pound of marijuana on the coffee table.

Are you saying that if the police find something other than the intent of the search, it should be thrown out? For example if I smell marijuana in a vehicle and search it but inadvertently find an obviously illegal sawed-off shotgun, the gun cannot be used as evidence since I wasn’t looking for it? This is covered under the plain view doctrine, I think first established by SCOTUS in Harris v. CA. The plain view doctrine is that if an officer is lawfully present at a location and if he sees something that is “immediately apparent” that it is evidence in a crime, it can lawfully be seized as evidence. In this case from KY v. King, if you agree that the officer lawfully entered with PC, then any drugs in “plain view” can be seized as evidence. BUT… (and I don’t remember the case name) The officer cannot manipulate the item. The case I am thinking of is when officers were lawfully in a home of a criminal suspect. An officer saw a stereo or computer or some other electrical item and believed it might be stolen. It was. The officer however had to move the item a little to see the serial number. That case was thrown out by SCOTUS and the search was found to be unlawful. Under the plain view doctrine, the officer could not immediately tell that the item was stolen. His moving of it would require PC which the officer didn’t have. In fact if an officer has PC to search, the plain view doctrine is not needed. In King, let’s say that the officer lawfully entered to find the guy who ran but there was no apparent evidence of any other crime. In that case, you would be correct. The officer could only look for the suspect. Since the officer had PC to believe that he was looking for a person, he could only look where a person could hide. In other words, he could look in the bedroom, in the closet, under the bed, etc. He could not lawfully open drawers in a cabinet, look in boxes, etc. because a person could not have in those locations. In King, unfortunately for him, he had drugs in plain view when the officer entered.

An officer sees a guy standing on a corner. He is met by another man. Alternately they casually walk down the block and look around near a store front. One would walk down the block and return, they would talk and then the other would walk down the block. After a few minutes a third guy came up and did the same. He then walked away from the first two and didn’t return. The officer said that it looked like they might be casing a store to be robbed. So when the first two guys walked to meet with the third guy, the officer had seen enough and approached and then grabbed onto one of the men. He physically spun the guy around and checked him for weapons. Finding a revolver the officer ordered the other two up against the wall and found another gun. The officer did not have probable cause to believe the men might be armed or about to commit a crime but he was suspicious of their behavior by his “experience”. The armed men were convicted of the weapons violation. There was no evidence to prove if the men were about to commit a crime. Lawful?

Entry without consent must be bases on probable cause/PC (not reasonable suspicion). To enter (or search) based on PC but without a warrant there must be exigent circumstances. PC has several but virtually identical definitions/interpretations. It is articulable facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of a search (or arrest), to which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information, that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime is about to be or has been committed. Basically it could be said, what would a reasonable or a cautious man believe if he had the same facts as the officer and with the same knowledge as the officer? Would this reasonable person believe that it is “probably” true? In this particular case, officers in Kentucky had probable cause to believe that a man just sold cocaine to an undercover. A foot chase ensued and the officer turned the corner and found two doors. On one side there was no sound and no odor but on the other there was the odor of marijuana and upon knocking on the door (which is obviously legal), there was bumping and noises as if somebody might have been getting ready to escape or get rid of drugs, etc. The officer only being a few seconds behind the suspect knew that he had to be in one of two apartments. One was silent with no odor and in the other he heard noises and could smell marijuana. The question becomes, would a reasonable person believe that a suspect who they just sold drugs and fled on foot was in the apartment with all kinds of noises and the smell of marijuana? The US Supreme Court overruled the Kentucky SC in an 8-1 decision and said the officer had probable cause to enter without a warrant. Remember that “probable” is a likelihood and not a guarantee. [Hidden Content]

Any more opinions??

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I wouldn’t have stopped either. That’s a what if with a few scenarios. What if the officer was running radar but he was not watching it at the moment both passed? You can tell that they were both speeding, but it was only his judgment as he was not looking at the radar. The officer could certainly make a lawful traffic stop using his opinion on what he saw, but can you justify citation for court and prove beyond a reasonable doubt? What if he saw both cars speeding but then saw the second car committee second traffic violation and since he could probably only stop one, chose the driver that didn’t use the turn signal? What if the officer just randomly chose one of the cars and after speaking with the driver, wrote only the citation for no turn signal? I hated writing citations and rarely did.

It appeared that you gave two different answers. I think I figured it out though. Officers are the state (prosecution) as police are government officials. So if you agree with the state you are saying that it is a lawful entry by the police and the conviction stands. But…. After reading it literally about five times I think I understand. Our terminology is different. The “state” is the prosecution. The “state” used the officer’s actions to convict a man of a felony. The “state supreme court” is not the state in this discussion. They sit in neutral judgment of the state’s actions. I have to remember that most people don’t use legal terminology. It is not uncommon for a “state supreme court” to overrule the “state”. So….. I am assuming that you are saying that the state supreme court in this case was correct and that the officer’s actions were unlawful. Case dismissed.

You can’t enter ever on reasonable suspicion.

I probably need to add this. Hopefully this can clear up situations….. hopefully. There are federal laws and state laws. They may be similar but one doesn’t depend on the other. The US Constitution is laid out that the states are basically a country within a country. Like the country/state of Texas has the right to make its own laws. They can make virtually any law that they wish as long as it doesn’t violate the US Constitution or Texas Constitution. So there are state courts and federal court systems. If the DEA files a drug case with the US Attorney (USA or the district attorney for federal cases), the USA can’t file the case in state court. Likewise for a violation of state law cannot be filed in federal court. The systems do not cross over. As an example a guy in Beaumont is convicted of a crime under Texas state law like theft. He disagrees with the trial judge’s ruling on a piece of evidence and wants to appeal. Beaumont is in the 9th Appeals District which is Montgomery, San Jacinto, Polk, Tyler, Jasper, Newton, Orange, Jefferson, Liberty and Hardin counties. So any appeals from those districts are appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeals in Beaumont. A loss by either party (state or person) can appeal to the supreme courts in Texas (Texas has two supreme courts). So in the Texas system you have: 1. Trial Court 2. District Appeals Court 3. Supreme Court (Texas has two as mentioned. The Texas Supreme Court is for civil cases like lawsuits and the Court of Criminal Appeals for crimes) So the guy convicted of theft in Beaumont has appealed his case all the way to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and he loses. The conviction is final!!! Well…. Maybe not. If the appeal is due to a US Constitution violation or law, the appeal can then be filed in the federal system which ultimately ends with the US Supreme Court. The federal system is almost identical to the 3 tier state system so you have: 1. Trial Court (federal District Court) 2. Circuit Courts (equivalent of Texas Appeals Court)(Texas is in the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans who has federal appeals jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi only). 3. US Supreme Court So….. A guy in Lumberton is convicted of a crime from a traffic stop. He appeals to the Court of Appeals in Beaumont and then all the way to the top in Texas and still loses. Since a traffic stop involves the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution however, he has a valid reason (nexus) to appeal to the federal system. The guy can appeal to the federal system by claiming his constitutional right was violated such as the Fourth Amendment and claiming an unlawful seizure on the traffic stop. The guy then starts over in the federal system by saying that the Texas courts made a mistake. All appeals are not accepted so it isn’t like the Texas or US Supreme Court hears each of the millions of cases a year. The judges in the appeals courts can simply refuse to even hearing a case. I am guessing that probably 99+% of cases are rejected. They can read the trial judge’s opinion and agree. Case closed. Clear as mud? An overwhelming majority of cases never get anywhere near a supreme court.

You have the chance of your first crack at it…..

Police are running an undercover (UC) drug operation sometimes called a buy/bust. A UC officer or informant buys drugs and the person who sold the drugs is arrested almost immediately. So the police are running such an operation. A UC buys cocaine from the drug dealer and gives the signal that a successful deal was made. The UC purchased the drug with identified money. The police attempt to arrest the dealer but he runs on foot. After a short chase the dealer runs into a dead end apartment entry area with an apartment door on either side. The officer only a few steps away hears a door slam and as he turns the corner, the dealer is gone. One apartment is completely silent. The one across the hallway has some bumping sounds and the officer claims to be able to smell marijuana. Without seeing the suspect and without obtaining a warrant, the officer kicks in the door of the wrong apartment and finds several people with multiple drugs. Several arrests are made. People were convicted but the state supreme court threw out the conviction as an unlawful entry. It was appealed to the federal system under the Fourth Amendment of unlawful searches and seizures. Lawful or unlawful entry?

And like the other trivia, attempt without google… It might be interesting on opinions…

Maybe interesting, maybe not.

But maybe that shouldn’t be trivial….

Need to have a law trivia thread….

And great discussion in my opinion.

There are very few shades of gray. The article goes into great length about service to country, work ethics, mechanical ability, disability, etc. While that may be an interesting story in itself, it has no bearing on the case. That is media driven fluff. Past history? If the moment deadly force was used and it was deemed lawful (later determined by a grand jury) the past history doesn’t matter. I believe the article said that Whitehead chest bumped Arnold. That isn’t “only words”. The legal standard for a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Texas law, if self defense is submitted to a jury, the jury must find that beyond a reasonable doubt…. there was no case of self defense. Maybe? Possibly? Could have been? I am pretty sure?….. are all reasonable doubt. Like the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one was attacking him… when there is videos of people attacking him. In my opinion a lot of times gray area means I didn’t like the outcome.

I get it… but they don’t get to many the final call. 🙃

Never more than 3…. When I was on patrol I carried 6 weapons… not all firearms (2).

When it gets to the Supreme Court those judges almost always side with the police when it is officer safety involved.

Arnold acted stupidly. Stupid is not illegal. The only policy violation that I remember is an unauthorized weapon. The weapon was outside of policy because he didn’t declare it. I could have very easily carried maybe as many as 20 different handguns off-duty over the years. We had two requirements in our policy. One was that the handgun had to be declared as to brand, model and serial number and the second was that the officer had to qualify with that weapon. I believe the first part of the policy was that any gun we were in possession of was registered with the police department. This might be so that we couldn’t dispose of or toss a gun into the scene (known as a throw down). So by policy, any handgun possessed by an officer in the public on or off duty, had to be declared. The second part about qualifying was in case of a lawsuit to show that the police department had inspected the weapon and the officer showed proficiency in using it. If I understand correctly, I believe that part of the policy has changed. Now the gun to be declared however, there is no requirement to qualify with it. So they had him on a technicality but I have carried the same model… after declaring and qualifying. Most of the witness statements said that Whitehead lunged for the gun or they couldn’t tell from their vantage point. At least one might have said something like that guy tried to head butt the officer and grab his gun. That is not words. The arbitrator overturned the termination before Arnold was not given due process under the law and policy. The city settled out of court with Arnold with what I understand was a hefty settlement. The family virtually always sues and always reaches a settlement. That is because it is sometimes way cheaper to lose than to “win”. It might end up with $500,000 in legal fees over the years of fighting it to prove the officer acted lawfully but a city or company can jingle $150,000 in the plaintiff’s face and say, let’s settle this. That infers nothing about the officer’s action but rather the concept of deep pockets. Time would not have changed the outcome. It would probably be the same result today. Very few people are murdered by the police… like almost non-existent. Out of millions of citizen/police contacts per week and several millions of arrests per year, the odds of a murder is astronomically low. Deaths? Yes, people keep resisting. Under out current climate it seems they are encouraged to do so.

1. Can you note how many redhatters post such articles every day? 2. People are entitled to believe whichever version they want. I am sure that some bluepills believe that MSNBC and CNN are absolute gospel and Fox News is all lies. Is there a difference?

I have mentioned this before but bullets13 has been on patrol with me a few times. In one case we had a disturbance involving a large party at night playing music. The group was given a warning to quiet down so people could sleep or not be bothered in their homes. But…. they weren’t having any of it. They cranked it back up soon after the police left and not even in the back yard. It was in the front yard near the street. So the police got called again. The police were not required to give a warning the first time. They could have walked up, put handcuffs on the responsible person (usually the owner) and brought him to the County Jail. The same is true in the second call. But… the officers responding said that they would write the owner a citation and he would have two weeks to determine if he wanted a jury trial, simply pay the fine or whatever. The crowd of about 10-15 people didn’t like that option, remembering that only the owner was going to get a citation. The officers, including me, practically begged the guy to just sign the citation, turn off the loud music and we would leave. Nope. They determined that it was better to run and then fight. Even after we got a couple of people in custody and thought it was over, another person stepped up and wanted some more. Again given a warning, back away, get out of the road and let it go. Nope. He wanted to tell the officers no, kind of advanced toward the officers and wouldn’t back away. So… to the ground he went with more serious criminal charges that a citation. The owner not only was arrested for the disturbance but also Evading Detention and Resisting Arrest. He went from being to sign a citation for a fine only ($500 max) and with the right to fight it in court to two charges that could carry up to a year in jail and or up to a $4,000 fine. As I got back in my patrol unit bullets13 said something like, I saw the whole thing and y’all did everything you could to diffuse the situation. The people cause that, not the police. This is played out over and over again many times every day in this country. In this case the police could have lawfully made an arrest on the first call for service. Even on return the officer tried to handle it with paperwork. They people chose other than a peaceful option, not the police. This involved a racial minority and the only point of that is that even with this on video, some people would still make it an issue of race and claim that the police were wrong.

Yep. But… but… but… Facebook and YouTube says I don’t have to!! Uhhhhh…. Yes, you do. On maybe a funny note, being involved in perhaps 2,500 arrests, I have only read or heard the Miranda warning a handful of times. There usually is no point in doing so. On at least one occasion that I can remember (although probably others) I arrested a guy who said something like, “I have charges on you!! You didn’t read me my rights!”. Nope and I am not going to!!! File your charges. Alas, I didn’t go to jail. Rights are only required if 1. A person is in custody AND 2. the person is being interrogated. I rarely asked questions from a person arrested. If he wants to sit back and run his mouth on camera while not answering any questions, let him. I love it when without being asked, they tell about the crime and the scene. But if an officer doesn’t read Miranda… you don’t get to file criminal charges. 🤣