Texas Officer Caught On Camera Trying To Delete Video Of Unlawful Arrest/Detainment
- Thread starter CAShooter
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I'm not 100% sure about all the particulars but from what I can see on the video I hope that guys sues the hell out of HPD. Not to get money but to put those officers in the spotlight and make the department accountable for training.
Well it just happened, or at least was just posted, a few days ago so you got to give them some time. I'm usually on the law enforcement's side but here I clearly think they were wrong. He can turn off the camera but erasing can be illegal. At the very least it makes the cop look like crap. He also has his law totally screwed up. Now lets be honest tho. In a case like this unless you can get this to be a civil rights case or class action group case the payout would be based on the damage done. What real damage was done here? That he sat in a police car for a few min? It's maybe worth a TGI gift card. I mean it stopped out on the street and didn't go any farther. On it's own it just wouldn't pay to sue.
Like I said I hope he takes the department to court or at least file a grievance and get it aired in local news. It's not about the money (and you're right it wouldn't be much) but it IS about holding the officers accountable for their actions and the department for the quality of their training. Again, I don't know if the OCer's sign was provocative in some way or if he was belligerent to the officers at some earlier date - all factors which could have triggered an altercation. All I can comment on is what I saw on the video and what I saw was harassment and tampering of evidence. HPD should know better than that.
I respect our peace officers but in this case they appear in the wrong and should be disciplined for it.
I respect our peace officers but in this case they appear in the wrong and should be disciplined for it.
I agree he was wrong and seems more than a bit confused about the actual laws. As to filing a complaint, sure if he wants. I personally think that sometimes it's better handled informally and that you may get better results but sometimes you definitely need to make it official. Now going to court, well he already crashed that idea. The only way it would ever get to a court is if there were some pattern of behavior and our protester already said he picked Houston because of how cool the cops had been. That equals no case unless he pays thousands out of pocket when a victory award wouldn't cover his parking.
Tejano Scott
TGT Addict
Tag
What do you think would happen if you tried to erase a LEO's dash cam?
This would end if every time a LEO was convicted of violating someone's Constitutional Rights, they would be promoted. The catch is, 5 officers in that department would be selected at random to serve a year in prison in general population.
Betcha the officers would do a better job of policing themselves.
This would end if every time a LEO was convicted of violating someone's Constitutional Rights, they would be promoted. The catch is, 5 officers in that department would be selected at random to serve a year in prison in general population.
Betcha the officers would do a better job of policing themselves.
texas skeeter
TGT Addict
Yuppers! Just another Sh-thole Libterd city being run into the ground!!!! I'll just bet that Cop is a Democrat!! LOL
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07.
Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02.
What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.). The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained.. Dutton’s mistake of law did not provide a defense for the false arrest claim.
Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas. Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason. The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.
“The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
“It is clear petitioner was arrested and convicted for his refusal to answer Officer Jennings’ question requesting that petitioner identify himself. This is impermissible even in the context of a lawful investigatory stop.” Spring v. Caldwell, 516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1982).
“First, Officer Lowe obtained identification from each occupant of the automobile though he had no legal basis whatever for demanding them.” Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
“Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously dealt with a case in which Texas police officers demanded that an individual identify himself even though they had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. In Brown v. Texas, the Court [11] ruled that Texas Penal Code Ann. § 38.02 (a), as enacted by the Texas legislature in 1974, was unconstitutional because it allowed an officer to stop and demand identification of an individual without any specific basis or belief that he was involved in criminal activity.” Weddle v. Ferrell, No. 3:99-CV-0453-G, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659, 2000 WL 256891 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
“Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.” St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).
Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas. Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason. The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.
“The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
“It is clear petitioner was arrested and convicted for his refusal to answer Officer Jennings’ question requesting that petitioner identify himself. This is impermissible even in the context of a lawful investigatory stop.” Spring v. Caldwell, 516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1982).
“First, Officer Lowe obtained identification from each occupant of the automobile though he had no legal basis whatever for demanding them.” Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
“Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously dealt with a case in which Texas police officers demanded that an individual identify himself even though they had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. In Brown v. Texas, the Court [11] ruled that Texas Penal Code Ann. § 38.02 (a), as enacted by the Texas legislature in 1974, was unconstitutional because it allowed an officer to stop and demand identification of an individual without any specific basis or belief that he was involved in criminal activity.” Weddle v. Ferrell, No. 3:99-CV-0453-G, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659, 2000 WL 256891 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
“Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.” St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).
Polarbear6
Active Member
Exactly! That caught my attention immediately. Comply, citizen
But hey, at least he went home safe to his family.
Is it a law that you must have ID on you? Carring a rifle with no ID don't sound like a good idea to me .IMO
This is what gives LEO's a bad image, this gruff demanding attitude and disrespect is getting them no where fast, No the Damned laws and obey/enforce them period,
I was reading the News online once and there was a poll and it simply asked.
When you see a police officer, Do you feel protected or Paranoid ?
And the results was disgusting.
Best/joe
I was reading the News online once and there was a poll and it simply asked.
When you see a police officer, Do you feel protected or Paranoid ?
And the results was disgusting.
Best/joe
