City Attorney Says Charges Could Be Dropped Against (KMart) Arrestees

HOUSTON -- Houston's Police Chief C.O. Bradford addressed concerns Wednesday about a Kmart parking lot raid earlier this month in which dozens of people were arrested.


	Hear What Police Chief Has To Say SURVEY Was The Parking Lot Raid Warranted? DISCUSSION What Do You Think Of The Parking Lot Raid?

The raid happened Aug. 19 in the parking lot of a Kmart department store, located in the 8400 block of Westheimer Road, in southwest Houston.

HPD officials had previously said that it conducted the crackdown in response to numerous complaints from citizens and previous police surveillance regarding street racing and large crowds forming in the area.

Police said that these crowds impeded the access to and from businesses and that as a result of the operation 278 people were arrested with the majority being charged with criminal trespass.

"Zero tolerance does not override the need for probable cause to issue citations or to make arrests, nor does it mean to arrest everyone in sight," Bradford said.

Bradford answered some tough questions Wednesday for more than two hours by some members of the City Council.

He admitted that the parking lot raid arrests may be illegal, if people were never told they were trespassing and given a chance to leave.

Bradford said that if that's true, then he wonders why his officers followed an illegal order to arrest everyone.

"No officer in the Houston Police Department has ever been cited with insubordination or any other offense for their refusal to obey an unlawful order nor will they be on my watch," Bradford said.

Councilman Mark Ellis and others said that they wondered why no one blew the whistle before this raid, because a smaller sweep was done the night before at a James Coney Island eatery in which 25 people were arrested.

"Friday night, I didn't know. A chief in charge of the department didn't know, because no one reported it in a significant event report that it had occurred," Bradford said. "So, therefore, there was not that opportunity to intervene before the next night occurred."

The city attorney told the council that if an internal affairs investigation reveals that the arrests were illegal, the city will dismiss all of the charges against all of the people and even overturn the convictions for those who pleaded guilty to get out of jail.

Thirteen officers have been suspended in the wake of the raid, including the officer in charge of the operation, Capt. Mike Aguirre.

One of those people arrested has filed a $100 million lawsuit against the city, accusing Aguirre and the city of falsely arresting him for "attempted trespass."

I predict that you're wasting your breath. Just a hunch.

You think? Check this out.

On another subject, I'm very encouraged that the chief is already saying this:

"We offer an apology," Bradford said. "Even if everything turns out to be within the law. The way it was effected should have been done a little bit differently."

Regardless of what the chief did or didn't do up to this point, or what eventually happens to him, I believe he's an honorable man. Anyone who has the courage to admit a mistake and apologize in the face of all of this (and what has yet to come) cannot be a bad guy.

I wish I could say the same for some of the people around here.

The battle lines have been drawn in the Houston Police Department.

Hans Marticiuc (I'm glad I'm typing that instead of guessing how to pronounce it) is the head of the Police Union. His job is to blame Department management, and keep the approximately 55 cops involved in this raid from being disciplined. He's hired an attorney to represent them, but he also hired a separate attorney to represent Captain Aguirre. That's because it's obvious to him that the patrolmen are going to have to plead the "just following orders" defense.

Meanwhile, the Police Chief is pointing fingers downward at both the street cops and Aguirre and pleading complete ignorance. The City Attorney knows that his goose is cooked if he tries to prosecute any of these cases, and the District Attorney is in the awkward position of trying to determine whether to prosecute anyone in the Police Department at all.

The City Council is trying to keep their political jobs, and the Mayor is trying to line up another trip out of the city as soon as possible.

From a political standpoint, the person who is the most expendable is Captain Aguirre. It helps that he is a complete turd who belongs in jail. Nobody, except the citizens who feel like Houmatt are going to support him, and he's done, gone, outta here. He may very well be prosecuted, and I think he should be.

The Police Union is going to make a compelling case out of the coercion and intimidation that occurs in the Department as the reason for following Aguirre's illegal orders. However, some of those officers who arrested the most sympathetic people are going to either be disciplined or prosecuted. The Police Union needs to understand that, or it's likely to end up as prosecution.

The next move is up to the City Attorney. I'm sure he's in negotiations and consultation with the DA's office, the Chief of Police, Hans Marticiuc, and perhaps even the US Attorney and FBI. He's going to drop the charges. He has little choice. They weren't justified legally, and the political and financial exposure is enormous.

The dust hasn't even begun to settle on this yet, but I think we can begin to see how it might.

I don't buy that for a second. The chief is projecting blame downward. Under different circumstances, an officer refusing to carry out an illegal order (presumably with relatively minor consequences) would face a career of parking meter duty.

Actually, I believe him when he say that no police officer has ever been cited for that. But I doubt there has ever once been an officer who made such a refusal. This was CYA talk by the Chief. No question about it.

The good thing about this is that it gives political cover and endorsement for the DA to go after Aguirre and any of his overenthusiastic subordinates.

The bad thing is that it ignores the fact that some of these cops were put in an untenable situation. If they stood up to Aguirre too visibly, they would be jeopardizing their careers and their ability to pay the mortgage. In hindsight, they all made a terrible decision. I'm sure it wasn't that obvious to them at the time.

The James Coney Island raid was conducted on adults who had been meeting for ten years with the blessing of the owner of the establishment and were doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Separate issue, therefore irrelevant.

How in the world is this irrelevant? This establishes a pattern of wide sweeps with disregard for evidence of individual guilt. And MAJOR jumping to conclusions.

Because the police made no effort to separate legitimate patrons from loiterers in either raid, they destroyed their own credibility.

Obviously false. If anyone is contributing to the destruction of the credibility of the Houston Police Department, it is the news media, who has deliberately tried to make this look like an act of the Keystone Kops on a group of little angels.

Obviously false? Based on what evidence? The government is always right?

I agree, he was definately CYA.

The good thing about this is that it gives political cover and endorsement for the DA to go after Aguirre and any of his overenthusiastic subordinates.

Judging from what I've read, Aguirre is the one that should get the brunt of this. He is the leader. IIRC, this was his brainchild. Of the subordinates, they might get some "corrective" punishment, but I wouldn't be to harsh on any rookies; they didn't know better. And they have learned how not to be as an officer of the law. Now a veteran of the force probably ought to know better and stands in a better position to say so.

Exactly. I've been in situations like this in regular work (I'm not a cop) and I have spoken out, but ultimately, if the boss says to do something you generally have the choice of doing it or quitting (of course i've never been asked to do something illegal or enormously detrimental to the public). I've had about 50/50% success in convincing him to rethink his position.

If there's a history of these type arrests in the past but on a smaller basis so they didn't get much attention and those arrested just bit the bullet do you think this could cause a snowball of more lawsuits?

I think this is going to be relevant to the people arrested at the James Coney Island the night before.

Any arrest made by Aguirre or under his command for criminal trespassing (that is still working its way through the courts) will probably be dismissed. If I were the DA, I wouldn't want to try to prosecute it under these circumstances.

I don't know what will happen for stuff that has happened earlier than the recent past, or that has been resolved (acquittal or conviction). You might ask an attorney.

Lets see. If I had been falsely arrested while having a burger at the Sonic, or while coming out of the K-Mart (not that I would ever shop at an anti-gun outfit like that) at the very minimum I would want would be:

1. Expungment (complete erasure) of all arrest records, to include the NCIC databases.

2. A written admission of wrongdoing from the city attorney on behalf of the city, notarized, 20 copies with original signatures.

3. Payment for all towing fees and damage to my vehicle.

4. Twice my hourly salary for all of my time involved in the incident.

5. A paid advertisement/apology on the frontpage of every newspaper in town for a full week, including the Sunday edition.

6. The same as number 5, but on TV and radio, every hour every channel for a month.

7. The mayor to apply his lips to my posterior repeatedly, on the steps of city hall for 15 minutes, after I had an hour to draw a crowd.

Given all that, I would not sue them for $1,000,000,000,000,000.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.