Mom Asks For Proof Of Warrant For 11-Year-Old Son -- She's Arrested
This is what allegedly happened and if it is the case, it is horrific police abuse which has no place in a free society.
Jonathan Turley blogs about it:
The mother said that she was aware that there was a criminal complaint made against her 11-year-old son and simply told police "I will release my son to you upon viewing those orders.' She says that the officer responded:"He said, 'This is how you want to play?' He took two steps back, turned around to the officer and said, 'Take her.' They turned me around, handcuffed me, and took me in."She spent the night in jail and police left the boy at the house. He was never arrested. Her lawyer says that it turns out that there was no warrant since the encounter occurred on May 29 but the directive to apprehend was not signed until May 30.
Turley further explains:
What is most remarkable to this story is that the family's lawyer told the media that the Slaton Police Department was only willing to apologize if the family waived any right to sue it for the unlawful and abusive arrest. That demand alone, if true, should result in the immediate termination of the police chief as well as the disciplining of any prosecutor who conveyed the demand in my view. Citizens should not have to trade away legal rights to receive an apology for allegedly abusive police conduct.
Pretty clear civil rights violation. A person can't be arrested in their residence without a judicially signed warrant.
ParatrooperJJ at June 18, 2013 6:04 AM
@ParatrooperJJ :
> Pretty clear civil rights violation.
Agreed.
> A person can't be arrested in their residence without a judicially signed warrant.
Disagree. Doctrine of "hot pursuit": http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hot+Pursuit
Which likely does not apply in this case, but it's important to note.
TJIC at June 18, 2013 6:08 AM
Children need to be taught early that police officers are not their friends.
CR at June 18, 2013 6:30 AM
Yeah, it sounds like an open-and-shut case, from that descripion. I wonder if there is any recording of it?
Cousin Dave at June 18, 2013 6:45 AM
Shouldn't the officers be charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child because they left the 11 year old home alone.
This guy was charged with it for locking four vandals in a closet until the police arrived.
Jim P. at June 18, 2013 8:14 AM
As a side note. Society has pretty much abandoned the apology. Mainly due to litigation. If I apologize, I am admitting I did something wrong, which pretty much means an automatic win in a lawsuit. Therefore no apology.
The corollary with that is some people they don't want to sue, they just want the apology.
Joe J at June 18, 2013 9:51 AM
In her place, I would sue, and part of any settlement would include the offending officers being fired. As in really not eligible for rehire, as opposed to being merely let go.
A strong message needs to be sent. Police need to be advised that if they don't act within the confines of the law, they're going to be punished.
Patrick at June 18, 2013 10:15 AM
Who needs an insincere apology? Sue. I am no fan of lawsuits, but in this case the police are doubling down on their initial stupidity. I'd ask for the officers involved to be fired, and for the remainder of the department to attend 40 hours of unpaid mandatory remedial training about respecting citizen's rights. If it doesn't hurt, it won't stop.
MarkD at June 18, 2013 10:50 AM
Jim P, your link from yesterday had an interesting update
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/17/west-virginia-teen-arrested-for-nra-shirt-officially-charged/?intcmp=obinsite
Seems exercising your 5th amendment rights is now a crime
lujlp at June 18, 2013 11:17 AM
When will you people learn? There's a set of laws for us, the peons, and another set of laws for those in power. Just sit down, shut up, and do as you are told or you will be spanked.
Assholio at June 18, 2013 12:02 PM
Actually, that comment was directed at lujlp's link. My bad.
Assholio at June 18, 2013 12:03 PM
Citizens should not have to trade away legal rights to receive an apology for allegedly abusive police conduct.
No, but if they apologise without a waiver, then they'll obviously be sued and lose.
So from a legal standpoint - and the rest of the people in town's money's standpoint - there's a real point in refusing to apologize when it would immediately be used against them in a lawsuit.
It might not be nice, but it makes sense.
Unix-Jedi at June 18, 2013 2:50 PM
Saw that. I think someone needs to get a freaking clue.
I heard an interview on NRA News today with the father. He implied the school calls the cops for non-violent offenses all the time. And then local LEO and political structure has an ego problem.
Jim P. at June 18, 2013 7:59 PM
Children need to be taught early that police officers are not their friends.
Posted by: CR at June 18, 2013 6:30 AM
__________________________________
Er, HOW early? Kids under a certain age (or intelligence level) clearly need to know that when they're lost or in danger, they should go to an officer for help - and if the officer approaches them first, so much the better. Talk about contradictory messages - offhand, I can't think of a similar situation where ALL parents have to go into reverse like that.
lenona at June 19, 2013 7:00 AM
And the guy approaching first in a blue uniform and a badge could be the predator.
Jim P. at June 21, 2013 8:57 PM
Leave a comment