Law Trivia and Discussions

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Judex said:

Qualified immunity is what generally covers them from civil repercussions.

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? 

[rupert3]

I'm guessing if it were what I call a HIT warrant he's covered if a word of mouth warrant he's not fully covered unless he sees something the perp did in his jurisdiction.  But then again if faulty warrant I don't know.

Off base?

[Judex]

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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? 

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Judex said:

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

 

6 hours ago, rupert3 said:

I'm guessing if it were what I call a HIT warrant he's covered if a word of mouth warrant he's not fully covered unless he sees something the perp did in his jurisdiction.  But then again if faulty warrant I don't know.

Off base?

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.

 

[thetragichippy]

On 8/23/2023 at 2:27 PM, tvc184 said:

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….

I read your last statement you posted with the conclusion, I understand. BUT:) ,  in a nutshell, wouldn't the officers be covered just like if a cop found me on the road beat up and I gave a description of a vehicle and description of folks that assaulted me? 

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I read your last statement you posted with the conclusion, I understand. BUT:) ,  in a nutshell, wouldn't the officers be covered just like if a cop found me on the road beat up and I gave a description of a vehicle and description of folks that assaulted me? 

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. 

[Judex]

On 8/24/2023 at 1:26 PM, tvc184 said:

 

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.

 

Your question was bad. Good faith is what the officer relies on to be entitled to qualified immunity. Good faith is not the actual thing that makes him IMMUNE to civil consequences. The legal DOCTRINE at issue is Qualified Immunity. Having had occasion to bring 1983/Bivens actions, I am not merely speaking out of turn.

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, Judex said:

Your question was bad. Good faith is what the officer relies on to be entitled to qualified immunity. Good faith is not the actual thing that makes him IMMUNE to civil consequences. The legal DOCTRINE at issue is Qualified Immunity. Having had occasion to bring 1983/Bivens actions, I am not merely speaking out of turn.

Certainly an officer doesn’t get qualified immunity if he acts in bad faith. What would an officer say, I knew I was doing something wrong, but I did it anyway? 

Good faith however is not limited to qualified immunity and a good faith doesn’t necessarily grant qualified immunity.

Good faith covers what I said. The Exclusionary Rule (evidence not allowed in trial due to an unlawful search or act by an officer) doesn’t necessarily apply even if a search or police action, while relying on good faith, was performed without the required probable cause. The evidence gathered, not the immunity of a government official, may still be valid.

If your point is that objective good faith is a basis for qualified immunity, absolutely. Again, an officer can’t say, you can’t sue me for a 1983 civil rights violation because I acted in bad faith.

[WOSdrummer99]

Question about school bus safety. When a bus approaches a RR crossing. Are they supposed to make a complete stop with their stop lights flashing and the stop signs in the side exposed?

When this happens, are other drivers on the road supposed stop for the bus just like they were loading or unloading students?

Asking for a friend

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Question about school bus safety. When a bus approaches a RR crossing. Are they supposed to make a complete stop with their stop lights flashing and the stop signs in the side exposed?

When this happens, are other drivers on the road supposed stop for the bus just like they were loading or unloading students?

Asking for a friend

The law says….

A school bus  must stop at between 15-50 feet from the tracks.

 The section on stopping says that a driver must stop if the bus is stopped to receive or discharge a student.

 The percentage of officers that are completely aware of the law is debatable……

[WOSdrummer99]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

The section on stopping says that a driver must stop if the bus is stopped to receive or discharge a student.

Sounds like we don't have to stop for them at the crossings. Although I always stop anytime I see the lights flashing. Even more than regular emergency vehicles. I never assume a child won't come around the front of that bus. 

[rupert3]

Get this thread going again.

What is Criminal mischeif or organized criminal mischeif?

[tvc184]

13 hours ago, rupert3 said:

Get this thread going again.

What is Criminal mischeif or organized criminal mischeif?

While remembering what is a crime or the definition of a crime (elements) is in one state might have no bearing in another state….

Criminal  Mischief is or was called vandalism in some states. A few other crimes have older terms that have been modernized. 

For example in Texas (and probably most states) the term rape doesn’t exist but sexual assault or sexual abuse, contact, indecency, etc. does. It is because it is now seen as a felony assault and not just a sex crime.

Disorderly Conduct is in some states or in common usage is called disturbing the peace.

 In another example in Texas law, what is now called Disorderly Conduct-Fighting, used to be called Afray 

So there are very few actual new crimes but there are sometimes a change in title or other wording. Very rare is a new chapter in Texas laws but this year an entire new chapter in the Penal Code was created called Terrorism  

 There is no such crime as organized criminal mischief in Texas. There is Organized Crime but Organized Crime is not a crime in itself but an enhancement of other crimes. Organized Crime is what under federal law would be called RICO or the racketeering statutes. It is gang or Mafia type crimes.

In Texas Organized Crime is not a crime in itself but an enhancement in another crime AND the ability to charge everyone involved. It takes three or more people to be Organized Crime. 

An example of both enhancement and charging other people, who may not even know each other: 

 A guy gets an idea of committing crimes and recruits a couple of other guys to help. The guy with the idea is A and he gets B and C to get involved.

So A gets B to break into homes while people are at work. B will bring what he takes to A. A will later give it to C to sell because C has more contacts with people that would buy stolen property. B does not know C. The only connection they have with each other is knowing A.

 After C sells the merchandise, they split money.

So B breaks into homes and stores stolen property with A who gives it to C to sell.

Then… they get caught. What basic crimes do we have?

B breaking into homes (Burglary) has committed a Second Degree Felony because breaking into a home has that penalty. It carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. If when arrested, A and C only had a few items whose value (let’s say $2,000) is just a misdemeanor. Normally they would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor with a maximum of up to a year in the county jail.

So B is looking at a maximum of 20 years and A and C a year in the county jail for receiving or selling stolen property. 

But…. Organized Crime then comes into play. IF….. the state/DA can prove that all three were working together to profit from the Burglaries then all three can be charged with the Second Degree Felony of Burglary-Habitation. So much for a year maximum in jail for A and C. 

 That is because under Organized Crime, everyone involved can be charged with the most serious crime.

But wait, there’s more. Remember there is also an enhancement in penalty so the Second Degree Felony goes up one level to a First Degree Felony which carries a maximum sentence of 99 years in prison.

So A and C, through Organized Crime, went from a misdemeanor of selling known stolen property to a First Degree Felony or the equivalent of the penalty of Murder.

Clear as mud?

[rupert3]

Clear as mud no but nice write up.  Joking, that does clear up a lot.

Now what is, CAPIAS PRO FINE?  I notice that on a lot of jail arrest reports here in Polk County

 

[tvc184]

43 minutes ago, rupert3 said:

Clear as mud no but nice write up.  Joking, that does clear up a lot.

Now what is, CAPIAS PRO FINE?  I notice that on a lot of jail arrest reports here in Polk County

 

Capias is another name for a warrant.

In Texas, always remembering each state has its own laws, a Capias Pro Fine is a warrant for payment of a fine only. 

Let’s say a guy gets a citation and then shows up in court within the prescribed amount of time and pleads guilty. The judge sets a fine and court cost of $250. The guy tells the judge that he does not have the money on him so the judge sets up a payment plan of $50 every two weeks when the guy gets paid. Yes that happens all the time where more time is granted to pay a fine.

So the guy leaves but never shows back up in court to pay his $50 every two weeks that he agreed to.

The judge issues, the Capias Pro Fine or warrant for money. A regular warrant is for a person who’s been accused of a crime and it could be from a traffic citation to capital murder. The person has not been convicted and the warrant is just to get the person into court. We have the constitutional and state law right to a trial or have your day in court.

In the case just described, the person has already had his day in court however. He pleaded guilty and agreed to pay the fine, but never did. The Capias Pro Fine means the person can now sit in jail until the fine is paid. The person is given credit for time spent in jail so a day in jail is usually worth $100 credit.

It was very common that when I arrested a person on a capias, as soon as he hit the jail, he would be calling someone to bring them the money. If not, they can sit it out at $100 a day. 

A regular warrant is to get you into court to answer an accusation . A capias under Texas (and other states) law is for a person who has already answered the accusation, but did not paid his fine. 

 

 

[tvc184]

I probably should cut my answers down. 🤣

What is a CPF?

It is where a guy pleaded guilty to the judge and was given a fine. The judge gave him so many days to pay it but he didn’t.

 The next warrant, the CPF, means that he has already had his day in court and will now stay in jail until it is paid or he has served enough time. 

[SmashMouth]

On 11/10/2023 at 2:24 PM, tvc184 said:

I probably should cut my answers down. 🤣

What is a CPF?

It is where a guy pleaded guilty to the judge and was given a fine. The judge gave him so many days to pay it but he didn’t.

 The next warrant, the CPF, means that he has already had his day in court and will now stay in jail until it is paid or he has served enough time. 

I like the long answers. Lol. It gives a clearer definition. Plus the extra time prohibits me from having to read some of the other inane posts! Very educational. Touched on some of this in college, but hell, that was waaaay long ago! Fun to read.